Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Belfast Aircraft (Disposal)

Mr. Pattie: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the disposal arrangements for the RAF's fleet of seven Belfast transport aircraft.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): Yes.

Mr. Pattie: Is not the Minister aware that these seven aircraft represent a specially constructed capability for transporting heavy equipment in support of our land forces? Is he not further aware that there is widespread concern in the country to the effect that the Government may not have the aircraft capability to meet a requirement for a rescue operation? In that case, does he not think that the decision to cannibalise these aircraft is the height of Government irresponsibility?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I do not accept that. Our VCIO fleet and the Hercules fleet are adequate to cope with all foreseeable contingencies which we have in mind. As for our total capability, I should be more impressed by what the hon. Gentleman says if he and his hon. Friends were supporting us in our attempts to increase

our air-to-air refuelling capability rather than making niggling complaints about commercial decisions of this nature.

Mr. Churchill: Is the Under-Secretary aware that, thanks to this Government, the military airlift capability of the Royal Air Force has been slashed by 50 per cent.? Does he appreciate that in consequence of that the decision was taken by his Government to stand down the only remaining brigade-size formation of airborne forces remaining in this country? Is that not a serious situation, bearing in mind the rising Soviet threat to British interests and British lives in other parts of the world, specifically Africa?

Mr. Wellbeloved: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made clear to the House, the Government are satisfied that they have the capacity to come to the aid of citizens involved in difficulties overseas, where that is necessary.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should have told the House at the beginning of Question Time that yesterday I had another complaint about our going slow on Questions. Without any reflection at all on those who have taken part so far in Question Time today—because their remarks have been to the point—I express the hope that we shall have brief supplementary questions today; otherwise I shall have to be more ruthless about calling supplementary questions.

Manpower

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength of the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and what were the equivalent figures on the same date in 1976 and 1977.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Dr. John Gilbert): The total strength of the Navy and Royal Marines, the Army and the Air Force at 30th April 1978 was 74,449, 159,740 and 84,590 respectively. The corresponding figures for 1976 are 75,577, 168,651 and 90,291; and for 1977, 75,720, 165,603 and 86,608. All these figures exclude locally entered Service personnel.

Mr. Gow: Is it the policy of the Government that the steady reduction in the numbers of the Armed Forces of the


Crown should continue? How does that reduction compare with the increase in the Armed Forces of those countries from which an attack, in so far as an attack is apprehended, may come?

Dr. Gilbert: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is "No, Sir". The figures are not likely to change greatly in the near future. As to the second part of the supplementary question, numbers are only a part of the capability. Equipment and training are also important elements.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Has there not been over the same period a huge increase in spending on military research and development to a figure of £872 million and on military equipment to a figure of £2·8 billion? Would not this research and development expenditure have been better devoted to non-military matters?

Dr. Gilbert: I agree with my hon. Friend that in the best of all possible worlds we should far rather spend research and development money on nonmilitary matters. Unfortunately, such is the state of international tension that we do not believe that that option is open to us.

Mr. Banks: What is the sense in the Government's policy of creating unemployment by reducing the number of Service men and then spending millions of pounds paying people to count lampposts and the like?

Dr. Gilbert: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that those two questions are not connected. That story has been traded across the Floor of the House many times. The reduction in the Armed Services was due to a planned programme consequent upon the defence review of 1974. That defence review was based on a realistic assessment of what this country's defence commitment should be for the last quarter of the twentieth century.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government's defence cuts have yet cost 200,000 jobs? If not, by what date will they have cost 200,000 jobs?

Dr. Gilbert: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to opportunities in defence industries, he is wildly in excess of the figures that I have at my disposal,

which indicate that the maximum will be about 140,000 next year.

Equipment Standardisation

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, at the next meeting of NATO Ministers of Defence, he will seek to place on the agenda the question of equipment standardisation.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Frederick Mulley): When I next meet my NATO ministerial colleagues collectively at the defence planning committee towards the end of this year, we shall discuss general defence issues, including those arising from the long-term defence programme, and also the report by the conference of national armaments directors to the council which deals with equipment standardisation and inter-operability.

Mr. Arnold: Within the context of the 10-year long-term defence programme and the recent announcement about accelerating co-operation between Europe and America in the development of new weapons, will the Secretary of State now say what specific obstacles he sees in the way of undertaking further moves in the direction of standardisation generally?

Mr. Mulley: Standardisation is much more easily dealt with by talk and resolution than in actual practice, because all countries have problems of industrial equipment. There are also problems of time scales. For example, I believe that we were right to decide to go for Nimrod for our airborne early warning aircraft. If we had not done so, the whole of the NATO airborne early warning system might have collapsed. Although we are seeking the maximum inter-operability, it was contrary to standardisation.
We have to try to get the widest possible agreement on operational requirements for the next generation of weapons, and then, between Europe on the one hand and the United States of America on the other, try to devise a much better system than we have managed to achieve in the past.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it has been argued that the Warsaw Pact Powers are able to obtain much greater efficiency for the same expenditure purely because they


have a higher level of standardisation? Will he accept that this matter should be treated very much more urgently?

Mr. Mulley: I agree that there is an enormous military bonus to be gained from complete inter-operability of equipment, although I should hesitate to want an alliance dominated by one partner in the way that the Warsaw Pact is arranged. Within the realms of practical possibility, we and our European allies are seeking, with the United States, to achieve what we can in this direction.

Mr. Hooson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the real obstacles to standardisation are the short-term economic interests of each member country in the NATO alliance? We are all pressing here for standardisation on security grounds, but there would be a howl of protest from each side of the House if there were standardisation which resulted in far fewer jobs in this country. That is true of all the NATO countries. How is this matter to be resolved?

Mr. Mulley: Not only in defence but in the wider context it is easier to agree to the general proposition than to the particular propositions which flow from it. I believe that we can, by devising a system of packages, work out a means whereby in Europe we can sustain employment in our industry and at the same time achieve, with our United States allies, a better arrangement than we have now.

Mr. Goodhart: Now that the Germans appear to have won the tank gun competition in the United States, will the Secretary of State say whether we are to press ahead with our own tank gun development or whether, on the grounds of inter-operability, we are to accept the German 120-mm smooth bore gun?

Mr. Mulley: We are still considering the options open to us for the next tank to succeed Chieftain, and I have not yet reached any decision. But clearly the question of standardisation or inter-operability is one of the factors in that decision. On the other hand, I still believe that the British gun is the best gun in the business.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that a fitting prelude to standardisation of equipment

would be to standardise the contribution that we make to NATO as a percentage of our gross national product, in view of the constant complaints that we receive from the Opposition, when we are paying, as a percentage, more than anybody else?

Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend is even sharper than usual today, because he has asked a supplementary before I have been able to answer the Question on the Order Paper in his name, to which I was looking forward. I do not think, however, that it is quite as simple as my hon. Friend suggests to standardise the contribution that each country makes. It depends not only on defence expenditure but on the size of the country's gross domestic product. I look forward to carrying the argument further when we reach my hon. Friend's Question.

HMS "Bulwark"

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects HMS "Bulwark" to commission.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. A. E. P. Duffy): As I told the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 9th June, HMS "Bulwark" will be brought to a fully operational state in the course of this year and will rejoin the operational Fleet early in 1979.

Mr. Brotherton: Bearing in mind that we now have no commando ship, may I ask how long HMS "Bulwark" will take to convert from her primary role as an anti-submarine warfare carrier to a commando ship, should such a necessity arise?

Mr. Duffy: No such conversion is called for. The hon. Gentleman above all should know that she was withdrawn from an amphibious role and is being introduced into an ASW role, because that is where the Soviet threat is now greatest.

Service Pay (Parliamentary Lobby)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what advice was given by higher authorities to Service men against their wives attending the parliamentary lobby on pay.

Mr. Mulley: The Ministry of Defence has issued no such advice. I should like


to make it clear that Service wives are completely free to speak in public, write to the Press or contact their Members of Parliament and that any anxieties about possible retaliation against their husbands are completely groundless.

Mr. Wall: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Is he aware that wives alleged that pressure was put on their husbands to advise them not to attend? Will he make it clear to commanding officers that wives have the right to lobby Parliament or to visit Members of Parliament on any matter they choose, Service pay included?

Mr. Mulley: We have made the position absolutely clear throughout. Indeed, from the number of letters that right hon. and hon. Members have sent to me there does not appear to be any great inhibition—rightly so—on the part of wives. Indeed, there is no reason why Service men themselves cannot contact their Members of Parliament.

Mr. James Lamond: Is not the rather pathetic sight of Service men's wives coming here to lobby Parliament, appearing on television or writing to the Press on behalf of their husbands another clear indication that it would be far more sensible if we regularised the position and allowed Service men to take part in negotiations about their own wages? Is it not time that we encouraged them to join a proper trade union?

Mr. Mulley: I am not at all sure that my hon. Friend's suggestion would entirely remove the problems. Although I firmly believe that the Government's pay policy has been absolutely essential to the economic recovery of the nation, nevertheless I know that many of my constituents and others who are in trade unions are not totally satisfied with their pay settlements. I do not necessarily think, therefore, that the matter would have been resolved in this way.

Rear- Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does the Secretary of State think that it was or was not a pity that no Members from the Labour Party were present to hear the views of the Service wives?

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: That is untrue.

Mr. Mulley: I read in the Press about arrangements for such a lobby, but until late in the afternoon I had no intimation

that the wives wished to see me. Certainly I would not have thought of visiting them without prior notice. I have written to several of the wives concerned. If they had intimated their desire to see me, I would naturally have tried to rearrange my programme, but we had no intimation that they desired any such interview. Frankly, I have other things to do than just sit in the Central Lobby in the expectation that somebody might want to see me.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that, whereas many working people are dissatisfied with pay policy, it is difficult to find another example where they have to send their wives here to lobby Members of Parliament? I urge my right hon. Friend once again that the only way to deal with the problem is by effective trade union organisation and effective collective bargaining to look after the pay and, indeed, the working conditions of the workers and technicians in uniform.

Mr. Mulley: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for again making quite clear his views on this subject. I do not happen to think that the particular problems we had with regard to pay would have been easily resolved. Other problems could have arisen. As I have said, one of the difficulties is that I am not at all sure that the Armed Forces are at present anxious to join trade unions, but this is obviously a problem which we must look at in the longer term.

Airlift Capacity

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the airlifting capacity available to Her Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Within the resources available, I believe that we have the most cost-effective mix of airlift capacity and other military capabilities.

Mr. Viggers: Is the Minister aware how completely his complacency contrasts with the view of other observers, including the Expenditure Committee of this House? If it should be necessary for this country to mount a rescue operation comparable with that mounted in Zaire by the Belgian and French forces, could we do it?

Mr. Wellbeloved: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already dealt very exhaustively with that point. As always, he is accurately reflecting the considered view of the Government on their capabilities to protect British citizens overseas.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: "Mix" is a highly sensitive word, and perhaps "mix-up" is better. Does not the Minister agree that there is nothing like sufficient air capacity to do a rescue operation? There are not sufficient airborne forces to carry out any sort of operation. In the event of an emergency, what plans does the Minister have to take steps to make use of the nationalised air corporation—British Airways—and the various other companies? It is very important that on this point I should be informed as to what plans there are.

Mr. Wellbeloved: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's observations about "mix-up", I can think of no greater mix-up than the activities of Conservative Members who are continually criticising the Government in respect of defence capability, yet many of them are queueing up outside my office to protest against the enlargement, expansion and increase in the air defence capacity of this country and our NATO allies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. As to the availability of civil aircraft, long-standing arrangements have operated under successive Administrations whereby we would have availability of civil aircraft to reinforce our military transport capability.

Sir Ian Gilmour: That is the second time when the hon. Gentleman has made absurd allegations against my hon. Friends. Why does he not make clear that what they have done is to object on environmental grounds to their constituencies being chosen? They have all made perfectly clear that they are in favour of this capability, and the Minister knows that perfectly well.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Making clear that one is in favour of an improvement in air-to-air refuelling capability could be best demonstrated by Members of Parliament, particularly Opposition spokesmen, making clear to electors, especially their own supporters, the vital necessity of having the capability in this country to carry out air-to-air refuelling.

BAOR

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the availability of equipment to those regiments serving in the British Army of the Rhine.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): I am satisfied that the British Army of the Rhine has the equipment it needs to perform its role. Our aim is to ensure that BAOR can continue to meet the threat as it develops, and there is a major re-equipment programme under way to achieve this aim.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the first priority of any Government is to be able to guarantee the security of the State against external aggression? Is he aware that certain units in BAOR cannot undertake exercises because of shortage of material and equipment and also because it takes a tremendous time to get the necessary spares for the obsolete equipment which they have?

Mr. Brown: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first premise. There has been no significant shortage of spares in BAOR during the last year. In an organisation as large as the British Army, it is inevitable that temporary shortages will occur from time to time, but these are overcome as a matter of normal equipment management.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Bearing in mind that the State with which we are concerned is Germany, and that in percentage terms of the gross national product Germany's contribution is less than ours although her exchange position is very strong, would not it be in the interests of NATO for Germany to make a bigger contribution to the equipment of BAOR?

Mr. Brown: I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly on this issue, but it does not arise from this Question. Perhaps he would care to put down a Question on the Order Paper for next time.

Mr. Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Winston Churchill.

Mr. Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Because of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made it impossible for me to call the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill).

Otterburn Range (Farms)

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is his policy to let farms on the Otterburn range without giving opportunity to potential tenants to tender for them.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: No. Farms belonging to the Ministry of Defence are normally let by competitive tender, but very occasionally a letting by private treaty may be justified.

Mr. Beith: How does the hon. Gentleman justify doing precisely that in the recent case of Carl Croft? Is he not aware that, whatever value may be found in the use of this farm as an adjunct to the county agricultural college, many farmers in the area very much resent the fact that the normal opportunity to tender for this opportunity to farm was not provided?

Mr. Brown: I can understand the feelings of hill farmers in the Northumberland area, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand that the Northumberland County Council badly needed a hill farm to improve the teaching facilities of the Kirkley Hall agricultural college and wished to rent Carlcroft farm. It was considered to be in the public interest that the farm should be made available to the county council.

Mr. Viggers: When the Ministry of Defence land is let for farming, will the Minister make sure that it is let for farming in acceptable practices? In other words, will he keep his pigs out of residential areas?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman and I have been in constant correspondence in recent months about pigs, and he well knows that his Gosport constituents should not be troubled by pigs on Ministry of Defence land.

NATO

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects next to meet his NATO colleagues.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he will next meet other NATO Defence Ministers.

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends next to meet his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation colleagues.

Mr. Mulley: I shall next meet my NATO colleagues collectively at the ministerial meeting of the defence planning committee towards the end of this year.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Will the Secretary of State at least discuss with them the possibility—I appreciate the difficulties—of France rejoining NATO because of the absolute necessity of having a clear command structure in times of emergency, not to mention the obvious difficulty of a successful resolution of the Vienna talks without France being in NATO?

Mr. Mulley: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman on this point. Of course, it will not be my colleagues in the defence planning committee who will be mainly concerned. It is France herself which does not attend. While I would welcome the return of France to full participation in the Alliance, I think it is good to know that co-operation, as far as it is possible, outside the integrated arrangements is good. I have no doubt that, should difficulties arise, we could count on the support of our French allies.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Secretary of State urge the acceptance of the new Warsaw Pact proposal for force reductions in central Europe, whereby for the first time the Warsaw Pact would make a greater reduction than NATO? Is not this an opportunity for ending the four-year impasse—this minuet—whereby one side advances or retreats as the other side advances?

Mr. Mulley: I would agree with my hon. Friend that the Warsaw Pact response, which was delivered quite recently, is extremely significant. It is not a case of a minuet. It is really the first time that it has made a significant response There are problems about the data. Clearly, one cannot discuss detailed reductions without knowing the base. Like the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), who talks about percentages without a base, one cannot do that kind of arithmetic. Therefore, it is important to clarify the data. This is under way and I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is responsible for these negotiations, is, like myself, most anxious that there should be a positive response. For that reason, I would not want to wait until the next meeting of the NATO Defence Ministers.

Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Commissioner Davignon has welcomed, on behalf of the EEC Commission, a recent report of the European Assembly which calls for the establishment of an EEC arms procurement agency? When the Secretary of State next meets his NATO colleagues, will he put this suggestion before them and ascertain whether they would welcome or resent such a development?

Mr. Mulley: I have seen the proposals of Commissioner Davignon but I am not sure that they represent the best way of trying to get standardisation and inter-operability in Europe. For the moment, I am persuaded that the independent European Programme Group is a better approach to this problem, not least because it includes all the European members of the Alliance. Certainly I shall sound out my colleagues informally and let my hon. Friend know if I receive any positive response.

Mr. Buck: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the geographical guidelines of NATO no longer make sense? Will he see about a renegotiation of these when he next meets his colleagues in NATO?

Mr. Mulley: I am not sure that I agree that the geographical guidelines make no sense. In view of the substantial long-term defence programme that NATO has undertaken following the

Summit, it would not be wise for me at this juncture to bring up the problem of redefining the boundaries of the Alliance. However, I understand and share the concern of the hon. and learned Member that there are problems outside the strict NATO geographical limits.

Mr. Hooson: Does the Secretary of State feel sufficiently encouraged by the significant response of the Russians on the limitation of armies on the central front to suggest to his colleagues in NATO that they should seek a limitation on naval forces, particularly on submarines, in order to see what kind of response the Soviets give?

Mr. Mulley: Since it has taken rather a long time to achieve anything in Vienna—some five years—I would hesitate, until we make significant agreed progress in central Europe, to start another set of such discussions. Naturally, however, I am anxious for multilateral arms control agreements in any areas of conflict.

Mr. Clemitson: Was my right hon. Friend saying earlier, in effect, that the fact that our gross domestic product is lower than that of a number of our NATO allies justifies our having to make a higher proportional contribution to NATO? Is that not the equivalent of saying that the lower a person's income, the higher the proportion of it that he should have to pay in income tax? That is patently absurd.

Mr. Mulley: I hope that my hon. Friend knows me well enough to know that I would not suggest such a proposition as he is trying to attribute to me. It is not easy to adjust one's defence expenditure on an annual basis, according to how the total figures work out, at the same time as the NATO European countries are increasing their defence expenditure. In fact, we have already moved from 5·1 per cent. to 4·9 per cent. of our gross domestic product, and this year it will be 4.75 per cent. We are moving down to the NATO European average, while our NATO European allies are moving up as a result of the additional expenditure that they have undertaken.

Mr. Churchill: Bearing in mind SACEUR's request to the NATO allies for increased readiness, how can the Secretary of State explain to his NATO


colleagues, when he next meets them, that he has given instructions for more than 10 per cent. of Britain's Chieftain tank forces on the Rhine to be placed in mothballs? When will the manpower situation be such as to allow them to be put into normal operation again?

Mr. Mulley: I think it is unlikely that they will raise this matter. They are aware of the very substantial contribution that we make through the Rhine Army. I believe that that problem is in hand and will not exist when the next NATO ministerial meeting takes place. While I do not complain that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues raise the shortcomings in our Armed Forces—it is right that they should do so—I would like them to say something positive from time to time about the excellent job our forces are doing.

Low-flying Training Overseas

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what new plans he has to enable the Royal Air Force to utilise areas in certain Commonwealth countries for training in low-flying techniques.

Mr. Wellbeloved: We are currently considering the possibilities for low-flying training in other countries.

Mr. Farr: Will the Minister say what representations he has had from the Canadian Government, who have, I understand, offered parts of Labrador for training in low-flying techniques? Labrador is relatively unpopulated, and low flying in that area would not cause the same disturbance as it causes over parts of the United Kingdom at night.

Mr. Wellbeloved: We already enjoy very good relationships with the Canadian Government and very good facilities in Labrador. I hope that this relationship will continue for a long time. We would certainly be prepared to respond to any initiatives from the Canadian Government to expand these facilities if that is their wish.

Mr. Tebbit: Has the Under-Secretary received any representations from any Labour Members about the environmental damage done in their constituencies by low-flying aircraft? If so, has he condemned them in the same unreasonable and vitriolic way as he did my hon. Friends who resent the reactivation of

Greenham Common, which has not been used for military purposes for some years? Also, is he aware that a housing estate has been built on the approach to that common?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I have received representations from both sides of the House about low-flying aircraft. I have also received from hon. Members on all sides very great understanding about the essential role that low flying plays in training the RAF to perform its functions of preserving the security of this country. However, at a time when we are trying to increase the defence capacity of NATO and the United Kingdom, I am entitled to take it rather hard when I am criticised by Conservatives who claim that the Government are not doing enough. When we attempt to do more, we are condemned for doing so.

Mr. Watkinson: My hon. Friend has replied in a most courteous manner to the representations from my constituents about the problem of low flying. Will he take account of the need to vary the flight patterns of the aircraft on their way to low-flying areas so that they do not overfly exactly the same areas on every occasion?

Mr. Wellbeloved: We are reviewing the whole pattern of low flying in the United Kingdom. When that review is complete, I hope that it will be possible not only to vary the route but to spread the burden that exists. I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides for the care they take in representing the views of their constituents on this difficult problem and their understanding of this essential requirement of our defence capabilities.

Mr. MacCormick: While I appreciate the great skills of the officers involved to avoid the possibility of another massacre of Glencoe, could I remind the Minister of the problem of low flying there? Is he aware that a lot of my constituents in that area are night-shift workers who find it very difficult?

Mr. Wellbeloved: We take enormous care to vary the routes and to take account of particularly sensitive areas and activities in undertaking low flying. The disturbance that occurs from this training is nothing compared with the massacre that would occur if this country


were left defenceless and the RAF were not capable of performing its proper function.

Paratroop Regiment

Mr. Aitken: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to strengthen the Paratroop Regiment.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: No, Sir.

Mr. Aitken: If Britain were to mount a rescue operation comparable with that mounted recently by the French in Zaire, is the Minister satisfied that this country has enough paratroops, aircraft and resupply and reinforcement facilities to carry out a proper job capably, or are the Government as complacent about this matter as they are about everything else?

Mr. Brown: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated recently,
the capacity to look after the lives of our citizens is there".—[Official Report, 23rd May 1978; Vol. 950, c. 1330.]

Mr. Crocott: Does it not ill become hon. Gentlemen who constantly complain about Soviet and Cuban military intervention in Africa to look constantly for ways in which we ourselves can intervene militarily? Does my hon. Friend further agree that by far the best, the most sensible, the most moral and the most popular policy that the Government could adopt would be for them to take an even-handed approach in condemning any foreign military intervention in Africa, whether from the Soviet Union, Cuba or France?

Mr. Brown: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend's basic premise, but I believe it is important that this country should have the right and ability to protect the lives of its nationals.

Mr. McCusker: Is the Minister aware that those who were most strident in their criticism of the introduction of members of the Paratroop Regiment in South Armagh, where they have carried out a good job, have been very silent in the past few weeks about the atrocities committed by the IRA? Will he further accept that, although the Parachute Regiment can carry out a good anti-terrorist job, the terrorists will be defeated only by the proper application of anti-terrorist techniques employed by the SAS?

Mr. Brown: I was with the 1st Parachute Regiment in South Armagh less than a week ago, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. It is indisputable that that regiment has carried out a superb job in South Armagh, and considerable sympathy for the losses sustained by the regiment has been expressed by the people in the area. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that IRA terrorists can be defeated only by the SAS. Every regiment operating in Northern Ireland has the capability to defeat terrorist-type activities of the IRA and will continue to do so.

Reciprocal Procurement (United States of America)

Mr. Warren: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the "Two-way street" sales between the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

Dr. Gilbert: The position remains substantially as I set it out in my reply to the hon. Member on 6th April. The United States Government are playing their part in the implementation of the 1975 memorandum of understanding on reciprocal defence procurement. United Kingdom firms have been increasing their efforts to win orders in the United States and sonic successes have already been achieved.

Mr. Warren: With respect to the Minister, I must point out that he did not tell me anything more on 6th April than he has told me now. Why is it that this House is not allowed to know what is available publicly in the United States to Members of Congress about precisely what has been sold each way across the Atlantic? Why should we not know the truth?

Dr. Gilbert: We have been at pains to show that our disclosure procedures with respect to these memoranda of understanding have marched step by step with those in the United States Congress. If the hon. Gentleman has information that is on public record on the other side of the Atlantic, which has not been disclosed in this country, I shall be happy to examine it.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in addition to the two-way programme between this country and the


United States of America, many people in this country are disturbed at the activities of private entrepreneurial manufacturers who, as it appears from BBC programmes, can easily sell arms made in one country to another and they can then be used against the interests of the country which made them? Will he examine this matter and deal with it when he discusses the subject with NATO and American officials?

Dr. Gilbert: If my hon. Friend is referring to the BBC programme which was put out last night—

Mr. Molloy: indicated assent.

Dr. Gilbert: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's assent. That programme dealt more with the activities of an international arms salesman than with a manufacturer of armaments. There is a certain amount of private enterprise manufacture of arms in this country, but all exports of arms from this country are under Government control and must have an export licence issued by Her Majesty's Government. We control these sales very closely.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: If the agreement is working as well as the Minister of State suggests, in both civil and defence aspects, why was it necessary for British Airways to borrow £34 million from the Japanese to buy a jumbo 747?

Dr. Gilbert: I think that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. The memorandum of understanding on which his hon. Friend's Question was based related merely to military procurement—the "Two-way street" sales.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Since the sales of weapons to the United States may not be going as well as my right hon. Friend would like, will he say whether his Department is considering the sale of arms to the People's Republic of China? If it is, what kind of arms does it think would be acceptable to sell to that country?

Dr. Gilbert: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that the subject of sales to the People's Republic of China hardly arises on a Question relating to the sale of arms to the United States. As for the progress under the "Two-way street" arrangement, I would inform the House that, although we are far from

complacent, I am wholly satisfied with the good faith which the United States Government and United States manufacturers are exercising to see that the memorandum is brought fully into effect.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. John Evans: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 27th June.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): In the absence of my right hon. Friend, I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend is today returning from the United States, where he received the first Hubert H. Humphrey International Award. My right hon. Friend has also had talks with President Carter and with leading figures from the United States aircraft industry.

Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Prime Minister the congratulations of every hon. Member of the House on his being the first recipient of this international award for statesmanship? But will he also make it clear when he sees the Prime Minister that many Labour Members are concerned at suggestions that the Government may implement the Boyle Report on top salaries? Will my right hon. Friend point out to the Prime Minister that if the Government implement that report there is no chance whatsoever of their achieving a further round of pay restraint with the trade union movement?

Mr. Foot: In reply to the first matter mentioned by my hon. Friend, I shall certainly convey his representations to the Prime Minister. I believe that the House would wish to congratulate the Prime Minister not only on the prize he received but on the speech he delivered in the United States, which is a speech of major importance on the international scene. I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks in the second part of his supplementary question, but I have nothing to say to the House on that subject today.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the Lord President suggest how the Prime Minister


reconciles the Government's present difficulties over pay when the Financial Statement said that inflation would go up unless pay increases were kept down and when the Prime Minister said yesterday that the Government would make their views on pay known in due course? In view of the fact that the present policy runs out in four weeks' time, when will the Government speak?

Mr. Foot: I see nothing irreconcilable in those statements. The prophecy about the figures was given, and the Prime Minister has already said that a further statement will be made on these matters before the House rises for the recess.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 27th June.

Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton. (Mr. Evans).

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to reflect on the thousands of redundancies that have occurred on Merseyside and the 600 redundancies now pending in Kirkby? Will he accept that only a bold, new, imaginative initiative by the Government, such as the funding of the 1988 Olympics operation on Merseyside, could adequately deal with Merseyside's problems? Will he also firmly repudiate the Tory proposals to make areas such as Merseyside safe havens for spivs, racketeers, speculators, exploiters of labour, Soho pornographers and ponces, and Tory crooks, because we want none of it?

Mr. Foot: It is easy enough to accept what my hon. Friend says in the latter part of his remarks, and I am sure that all of us on the Labour Benches are glad to agree with him. On the first matter raised by my hon. Friend, I trust he agrees that tackling the appalling unemployment problems on Merseyside and elsewhere calls for a whole series of measures at home and abroad. It was especially those international measures which must be taken on a wide front to which the Prime Minister referred in his speech. I believe that he carries the support of all Labour Members in giving a lead to the whole Western world in

seeking to deal with this problem of unemployment.

Mr. Whitelaw: When the right hon. Gentleman is reflecting on respect for the law, will he consider the report of the Advisory Council on the Penal System, published today, and reflect on his own attitude to the independent judiciary? Does he appreciate how much his personal attacks on judges undermine respect for the law in this country?

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman has been misled, perhaps by his leader, on the subject of my comments on the judiciary. All that I have done is to give some simple history lessons to those who ought to have learnt their history at school.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 27th June.

Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans).

Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend find time to comment further on the Shadow Chancellor's suggestion that the solution to unemployment in deprived areas such as Clydeside and Merseyside is to create tax-free havens for employers, with little, if any, employment protection legislation for workers? Would that not increase deprivation by creating lawless ghettos where workers would have little, if any, protection under the law in basic matters such as health, safety and job security? If this idea is typical of what is coming from the Tory think-tank, is it not clear that it has become rather septic?

Mr. Foot: I should not like to comment further in response to my hon. Friend's invitation. A most apposite statement was made the other day. It was:
There is no way in which this problem"—
the problem of inner urban areas—
can be solved by easy application of free market forces. Mr. Milton Friedman has only to take a short cab ride from his university in Chicago to see what free market forces have done to some districts of that city.
That was said by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), and it is the


best speech that even he has made for quite a long time.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: In his acting capacity, will the right hon. Gentleman do a useful job for the Prime Minister and look into a case of apparent lack of co-ordination between two Ministries, one of which expresses regret about the murder of British missionaries while the other pays direct aid to a country which harbours terrorists who do that sort of thing?

Mr. Foot: This whole question was dealt with fully and adequately by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday. I do not believe that there is any contradiction in what he said to the House and the whole of our policy on this matter. I am sure that the best course for the House to take in this respect is to follow the advice of the British Council of Churches, which is fully in accord with what was said by the Foreign Secretary yesterday.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Lord President referred to his orginal reply. May I refer him to his reply to the first supplementary question? Does he not think that it is disgusting that top civil servants should get a 20 per cent. pay increase without one murmur from the Government and that there should be rumours of 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. rises for the members of boards of nationalised industries without one murmur from the Government, while he has said that he can do nothing for hon. Members who, if their pay were set at the same real level as the salaries they were receiving in 1965, would be entitled to just on £11,000 per annum? If he cannot do it for one, why does he do it for the other?

Mr. Foot: I have nothing to add to the earlier answer that I gave on this subject.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Why did the right hon. Gentleman bother to turn up at all?

Mr. Foot: Of course, hon. Members' salaries will be debated in the House in a few weeks' time, as I have indicated on a number of occasions.

Mr. Pardoe: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the first four Ques-

tions to the Prime Minister are pretty ridiculous, make a mockery of the House and make it look even more ridiculous than it sounds on the radio? May I ask him a question that is directly relevant to the answer that he gave about the Hubert H. Humphrey memorial award? Is he aware that the main barrier that Hubert Humphrey met on his way to the White House was the lack of cash? Is he further aware that the United States Government subsequently had to change the regulations governing the remuneration of political parties in America? What will he and the Government do about the Houghton Report?

Mr. Foot: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be of great benefit to democracy in this country if we could carry into effect the recommendations of the Houghton Report or recommendations along those lines. I should like to see a majority in the House to achieve that purpose, and as soon as there is such a majority I hope that this will be one of the many excellent measures that will be brought forward. Whether the hon. Gentleman will be here to join us in that happy event, I am not sure.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 27th June 1978.

Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans.)

Mr. Wainwright: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, in addition to increasing the cost of defence and promising £700 million on the training of youth, the Conservatives also have a General Election gimmick of £4,000 million cuts in public expenditure? If the Prime Minister is not aware of this, will he ask the Leader of the Opposition to explain how the Conservatives are to bring about those cuts?

Mr. Foot: As to my right hon. Friend being aware of these simple facts, I think that the idea has crossed his mind occasionally and I dare say that over the months ahead he may be provoked into making references to these matters. Of course, it would greatly assist us if the Opposition


—perhaps the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) himself—would make a full statement of all the expenditure increases they have recommended. I gather that they are having deep disputes on this subject, and the sooner we can see them resolved, the better.

Mr. Anthony Grant: While the Prime Minister was in America, did he express to President Carter the Government's support for the lifting of the United States arms embargo on Turkey, which the British Secretary of State for Defence supported last week and which the Western European Union Assembly also recommended last week?

Mr. Foot: I do not think that that was one of the special subjects which the Prime Minister discussed, although he will, no doubt, be making a full statement to the House on this and many other aspects when he returns. The House should recognise that in his speech in the United States my right hon. Friend took a special occasion to try to ensure that the nations of the West should apply their minds at the Bonn Summit meeting to the appalling problem of unemployment. He urged that nothing should be done to injure the SALT negotiations—I believe that he will have the support of the country in that—and he also outlined an attitude towards the problems of Africa which should command the support of people throughout this country. The House should recognise that the Prime Minister on his visit to the United States spoke for the whole country—or, at any rate, for the more civilised section of the country.

Mr. Henderson: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about whether the Prime Minister has discussed with President Carter the question of the Singer Company on Clydebank? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the Glasgow, Garscadden by-election great promises were held out to the people of Clydebank that the Prime Minister would be able to save the jobs of the people in Singer and that these expectations have been cruelly dashed in the last few days?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has misrepresented the situation. This was not one of the subjects which the Prime

Minister was discussing with President Carter. Of course we have been eager to sustain jobs on Clydebank, and it was partly because of action by the Government that the jobs were available in the first place.

Mr. Grocott: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time to get hold of a Conservative Central Office list of official Tory parliamentary candidates and note that they include these days the names of extremists such as Ward of Grunwick? Will he point out to the electorate on every conceivable occasion that, should it he misguided enough to vote Tory next time, we shall be in for a long, hard winter if people such as Ward are elected?

Mr. Foot: I must say that my hon. Friend is a generous fellow. It is hard to think that some of the prospective candidates would be any worse than a few of the Conservative Members we already have on the Opposition Benches.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (CATERING STAFF DISPUTE)

Mr. Fry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before I came to the House this afternoon I was informed by the Refreshment Department that there was a danger of all functions downstairs being cancelled tonight and later in the week as a result of industrial activity by the staff employed in the department. This will undoubtedly cause considerable confusion and disappointment to many constituents who are booked to attend functions in the House over the next few days. There seems to be considerable uncertainty about the extent of the industrial action and how long it is to last.
The Government boast of their ability to get on with the trade unions. Therefore, is it not right that we should expect a statement from the Leader of the House on the nature of the action, how long it is likely to last and what the Government propose to do to resolve it?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a Services Committee and a Catering Committee, but if the Lord President seeks to reply, I shall be very relieved.

Mr. Foot: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear that it was a


point of order: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was asking a question. I apologise for rising on that account. I fully understand the desire of the House to ensure that there is no disruption of our nomal methods of proceeding in these matters. I am making inquiries to see whether we can overcome the difficulties. I do not have a statement to make now. However, I fully understand the desire of the House that we should enable our normal customs and practice to proceed satisfactorily and I shall do my best to ensure that that happens.

Mr. Goodhew: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Lord President has been kind enough to say something on the matter, may I ask him whether it is possible to get the strike delayed by 24 hours? For instance, I have 60 constituents coming to the House this evening. It is impossible for me to contact all of them to tell them not to come.

Mr. Foot: I understand the feelings of hon. Members and I understand the feelings of those responsible. I see that the hon. Member for Fareham (Dr. Bennett), who has an intimate knowledge of these matters, is in his place. We were hoping to have a discussion before the proceedings of the House started today. We shall be having a discussion very soon. We shall ascertain how best we may seek a solution of the difficulties.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: The General Manager of the Catering Department received a note this morning informing him that all labour would be withdrawn in all the Catering Department branches from 6.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. today. We hope to try to persuade those concerned that that should not be done, but I cannot hold out very much hope. However, I shall engage myself in all conversations both with the Leader of the House and with the union to try to avert this action.
The reason behind the proposed action has been the inordinately long delay in making any progress towards pension rights. The matter also concerns days off for the staff, which in Civil Service arrangements may be taken at any time but which the staff thought would be unduly disruptive for the Catering Department. Therefore, they were asking for a certain allowance of holiday time in lieu. Those are the issues on which the action has been called. I shall do my best on behalf of the House to try to resolve it.

BILLS PRESENTED

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

Mr. Secretary Rees, supported by Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Secretary Mason, Mr. Secretary Milian and Mr. Brynmor John presented a Bill to increase the limits on candidates' election expenses at parliamentary elections and to enable the Secretary of State by order to vary the limits on candidates' election expenses at parliamentary and other elections: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS ACT 1970 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Jack Ashley, supported by Mr. John Hannam and Mr. Bruce Grocott presented a Bill to amend the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14th July and to be printed. [Bill 155.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Roads and Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]

MENTAL HEALTH (TRIBUNALS)

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make new provision with respect to appeals by patients to mental health review tribunals.
The House, in the exercise of its role in the law-making process, has regard to the responsibilities of individual citizens and also has regard to their rights. Among the most precious and fundamental of rights is that of any citizen not to be deprived of his or her liberty without due process of law. Most schoolchildren know of the writ of habeas corpus.
There is, however, one group in our society that enjoys no such automatic rights. I refer to those who are formally admitted—that is to say, compulsorily admitted—to mental hospitals because they are mentally ill and require treatment.
Residents who are detained in hospital through short-term compulsory orders have no right to apply for a mental health review tribunal. Over 90 per cent. of those compulsorily admitted in any average year have no right to apply for a tribunal, or to any other independent body.
The House has been waiting for a long time for the Government to produce their White Paper on the working of the Mental Health Act 1959, which is the present governing statute. The wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly, and the wheels of the Department of Health and Social Security turn much more slowly than most.
It is because I think that it would be sensible to wait to see whether the Government have any any proposals in their White Paper to rectify the situation that I have outlined that I am asking the House to give me leave to introduce a Bill that is much more humble in what it seeks to achieve.
The Bill addresses itself to the remaining 10 per cent. of formally admitted patients who do have the right to apply for a tribunal. These residents are those who have been admitted pursuant to Sections 26, 60, 65, 71 and 72 of the 1959 Act, and they are compulsory longterm admissions.
The House may wonder why I should single out a group of patients who have a legal right already. The answer lies in the fact that for the most recent years for which figures are available only 12 per cent. of those eligible to apply have applied for a tribunal. It should be remembered that that is 12 per cent. of a group detained against its will. Such a low take-up suggests that something is wrong.
The problem is that to get the legal process under way the onus is on the patient to initiate proceedings. When it is appreciated that the patient may be under sedation or undergoing a course of treatment, is probably under stress and may not be aware of his or her rights, the reasons for the low take-up become apparent. After a comparatively short period patients can become institutionalised and suffer isolation and withdrawal. It is also not unknown for various forms of pressure to be put on patients not to apply for tribunals.
The Bill would seek to rectify that situation by making a referral to a mental health tribunal mandatory within three months of admission. That would not cause many patients to be released who should not be released. It would merely ensure that cases are automatically reviewed early and that the review happens without the patient having to start the ball rolling. The suggestion of automatic review has already been broadly welcomed by the Government in their consultative document on the 1959 Act.
The Bill will also seek to make certain improvements in tribunal procedures. There is genuine concern among the Council on Tribunals and within the Department of Health and Social Security about some aspects of current procedures.
The representatives of applicants seem not to be given medical reports until immediately prior to the hearings. Decisions on new evidence have been taken without the representative being present. Legal aid is not available beyond the legal advice scheme green form, which covers only the first £25 of advice.
Improvements are also needed in the "requests for a public hearing" and the "reasons for a decision" procedures. Once again, a Government Department is looking at the position—this time, the Lord Chancellor's departmental review on


tribunal procedures. As the DHSS, the Home Office and the Welsh Office are also involved, it could be a very long time before anything emerges.
The 1959 Act was a very good Act and has served as the model for several other Acts in other countries. Nearly 20 years later, however, the shortcomings of the Act are very apparent and reform is needed. Other countries are ahead of us. Ontario, for example, which followed our 1959 Act with one of its own in 1961, is now having a debate between psychiatrists and administrators whether the automatic review should be after 15 days or one month.
The World Health Organisation, in a recent report, surveyed mental health legislation and compared this country less favourably with many American states and all the Scandinavian countries.
The incidence of mental stress and illness is growing, and one person in ten can expect to be mentally ill at some time. Mental patients are not the most appealing members of society, but they, as much as anyone else, deserve our sympathy and compassion. Through no fault of their own, they have become ill. Basic human rights are not things to be doled out only to decent chaps. Human rights belong just as vitally to those who may often be their own worst enemies. We are responsible for the welfare of these, our fellow citizens. The House is being asked to give a little hope and encouragement to them, which I sincerely hope it will now do.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mt. Geoffrey Pattie, Mr. Charles Irving, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Mr. Eric Moonman, Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr D. E. Thomas and Dr. Gerard Vaughan.

MENTAL HEALTH (TRIBUNALS)

Mr. Geoffrey Patties accordingly presented a Bill to make new provision with respect to appeals by patients to mental health review tribunals: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14th July and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT (CONTINENTAL SHEIF) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now real the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 56(Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (ADMINISTRATION) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.
No. 4, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
(e) one member to be appointed by Mr. Speaker after consultation with representatives of all minority parties.'.

Mr. English: The object of this amendment, Mr. Speaker, is to take you out of politics. On the present basis, the proposed House of Commons Commission will consist of six persons: yourself, or your successor in office; my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, or his successor in office; the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), the Shadow Leader of the House, or presumably his successor in office; someone appointed, as the Bill puts it,
by the Leader of the Opposition
—a Front Bencher, in other words—and three Back Benchers, although the Bill does not put it in those terms.
I understand that there is an institution, currently not yet existing, but lurking in the background, sometimes referred


to as the Shadow Commission, which consists of one Labour Privy Councillor, one Liberal Privy Councillor and the hon. Member for Bristol West (Mr. Cooke), who is now on the Opposition Front Bench.
The situation, therefore, would be that, in terms of the original parties for which Members were elected, for example, the Labour Party on such a Commission would have you, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is not inhibited in claiming to belong to the Labour Party, and another right hon. Member of the Labour Party. There would be three members from the Government side and three from the Opposition. That seems reasonable until we realise that one of those members is Mr. Speaker. That is quite inappropriate. It would clearly be better for the Commission to consist of seven members, three from the Government side, three from the Opposition and Mr. Speaker of the day impartially to act as Chairman.
That is the sole object of the amendment. It is to ensure that the Commission is balanced so that half of it consists of representatives of the Government side, whether they be Front or Back Benchers, and the other half consists of representatives of the Opposition, whether they be Front or Back Benchers, with Mr. Speaker of the day acting as Chairman of that body and not being forced to be part of either the Government or the Opposition.

Mr. Robert Mellish: I suppose that I should wait to hear what the Government have to say on the amendment. It seemed to me that three was the right figure. The idea was that one member would be from the Government of the day, one member would be from the Opposition and the other member—perhaps the Government will correct me if I am wrong—would be by agreement with the smaller parties. The Liberals, the Scot Nats, if they ever come back—I hope that they do not—and the Ulster Unionists would have to get together, have a chat and decide who should be their member. That is how I see the composition of the three. I am not sure what four would do.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): I understood that the intention of having four rather than three members was to provide the Government of the day with a clear majority on the Commission.

Mr. English: I think that we should get this matter clear. The intention is to ensure that the governing party—not the Government, as my hon. Friend said—should be represented by half the Commission. At the moment it has two out of five if we exclude Mr. Speaker. If we include Mr. Speaker, it has half. However, I do not think that we should classify Mr. Speaker as part of the governing party, still less of the Government.

Mr. Price: My hon. Friend and I have met somewhere in the middle. This change is designed to ensure that, if necessary, there will be a voting majority on the Commission. Some of us believe that the intention of the Bill in setting up the Commission is to keep it on a non-voting basis, and certainly one which does not have too much regard for the politics in this Chamber. That is why I resist the amendment.
The Bottomley Committee recommended a Commission of six members: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the House, the official Opposition's nominee and three Back Benchers. It will be for the House to choose the three Back Benchers. But assuming, as recommended by the Bottomley Committee, that one of the Back Benchers were from the minority parties, the party representation on the Commission would probably be one Government Front Bencher, one Government Back Bencher, one Opposition Front Bencher, one Opposition Back Bencher and one minority party representative. In so far as Mr. Speaker as Chairman would be unlikely to vote, except in the event of a tie, the party balance would be likely to lie with the minority party representative. If Back-Bench representation were increased to four members, as proposed in the amendment, the Government would he likely to have parity, even if opposed by the minority party representative, and Mr. Speaker would be more likely to be placed in the position of having to exercise his casting vote.
I repeat, the Commission is envisaged as essentially a House of Commons, not


a party, body. It was not expected by the Bottomley Committee that it would have recourse to voting. In Committee I offered to look at this matter because I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) had a good point. Having looked at it, I think that on balance we should leave the position as it is.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. William Price: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 19, leave out 'which shall' and insert
'and shall cause it to'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 21 and 22.

Mr. Price: This is a drafting improvement to an amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Red-ditch (Mr. Miller), and accepted in Committee, to provide that the annual reports of the Commission's exercise of its functions shall be printed. The amendment has the effect of placing an obligation specifically on the Commission to ensure that this is done, otherwise, the responsibility for action would be left in the air.
In practice, it is likely that the House will notify in Votes and Proceedings and the Journal of the House that it has ordered the report to be printed, thus bringing the report within the scope of the Parliamentary Papers Act, 1840.
Amendment No. 21 involves verbal usage. It is more normal to speak of revoking a delegation than of rescinding it. Amendment No. 22 is a verbal tidying up and simplification and substitutes one word for four words. It provides that delegations of the Commission's powers should be referred to in the Commission's annual report. The amendment was agreed to in Committee. I recommend that the House accepts the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Mr. English: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 37 leave out 'the service' and insert
'or in connection with the administration'.

There has been a great deal of argument about this amendment and those connected with it which have not been selected. Those amendments which have not been selected are Nos. 12 and 18. When they were tabled by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and myself, we were told by those who advise us on these matters that it was less likely that an amendment would be found to be in order if it included the question of Members' pay, which is concealed under subhead Al in Amendment No. 18.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is under a misapprehension. He can speak only to Amendment No. 8, which I gather is a probing amendment. All the other amendments dealing with Members' salaries are out of order.

Mr. English: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we can discuss the matter on a point of order.
I understood from the Clerk's Department that it was conceivable that you would be able to find all three amendments in order if they excluded Members' pay, but that it was inconceivable that you would find them in order if they included Members' pay. That seems to have happened.
Members of the House of Commons trust you, Mr. Speaker, and your Commission perhaps more than they trust the Treasury on the question of their pay. The original suggestion that was put to me was that all three of the amendments would be ruled out of order. I was hoping that the compromise was that we could discuss Amendment No. 8 and the issues raised by all three amendments but that it would be impossible to put them all to the vote.

Mr. Speaker: I should have liked to help the hon. Member and the House. I have leant over backwards in an effort to do so.
I must tell the hon. Member that the Clerks do not decide what is in order and what is out of order. Let that be quite clear. The hon. Member must always indicate that he knows who decides what is in order. That trust has been given to me. I do not take it kindly when there is any indication that I am


a rubber stamp for anyone. I decide what I believe is in order.
I shall give a ruling to the hon. Member. My view is that Amendment No. 18, which is his main amendment of substance, is not in order since it contains references to Subheads Al and A8 of Class XIII, Vote 2 of the Civil Estimates which refer respectively to Members' salaries and cognate expenses, and contributions to the parliamentary contributory pensions scheme. In my view these matters are entirely outside the scope of the Bill. I have looked at it very carefully. The Bill is concerned solely with the internal administration in this House and with the expenses connected with our affairs. The fixing of the amount of Members' salaries and other emoluments has never formed part of any previous legislation in connection with the administration of the House. Parliamentary contributory pensions, as the hon. Member knows, are dealt with in separate legislation to which this Bill makes no reference.

Mr. English: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. But if you look up Hansard you will see that I was careful not to say that the Clerks of the House determine what is in order and what is not. I was careful not to suggest that that was not your prerogative.
What I said was that before you, Mr. Speaker, had made your decision I was informed by the Clerks that they thought it more likely that you would find in order an amendment which excluded the question of Members' pay than the opposite. I added that that was what seems to have happened. Their advice in this context seems to have been correct.
It would have been impossible for previous legislation on the subject of a Commission of this House to include any question of Members' pay because in 1812 and 1814 Members were not paid. With respect to you, Mr. Speaker, your suggestion that previous legislation on the internal administration of the House did not include Members' pay is because more than a century before Members' pay was instituted it was not possible for such legislation to envisage it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is correct. But he will also know that since he has not succeeded in getting the salaries of Members included on the Order Paper

he is not able to debate the matter. That is all that I am telling him. He must confine himself to what is before the House.

Mr. English: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. We have had the opportunity of making the relevant point.
The issue surrounding Amendment No. 8 is that the Bill relates to the administration of the House of Commons. In accordance with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I shall assume that Members of the House of Commons have nothing to do with its administration. But the Bill does not accept in its terminology what is in the Long Title. The object of the amendment is to determine the situation.
Clause 3(1) reads
For the year 1979–80 and each subsequent financial year the Commission shall prepare and lay before the House of Commons an estimate for that year of the expenses of the House Departments and, to such extent as the Commission may determine, of any other expenses incurred for the service of the House of Commons.
The words "expenses" and "service" are part of the cause of the difficulty. The Title of the Bill reads:
To make further provision for the administration of the House of Commons.
It says that it is for its "administration" not its "service". The Chair has just ruled that Members of the House of Commons should have nothing to do with its administration which apparently exists to serve itself. The Bill does not even admit the administration of the House of Commons. It merely refers to the "service" of the House of Commons.
During Committee I asked the Parliamentary Secretary what this meant. For example, did it mean that when a Select Committee recruited from outside a professor at Cambridge, a senior partner of a firm of actuaries or accountants or advisers of the type that Select Committees now recruit, we are to be forced to pay them only the travelling expenses which the Treasury allows to consultants, or will the House of Commons Commission be able to say "No, you will be able to pay these men what they are worth. They are not permanent staff of the House of Commons, but as long as they are assisting the House of Commons they may be paid what they are undoubtedly worth to it."? Will it be possible for that to be done?
4.0 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Minister gave a fair answer when he said that he did not know what the clause meant in effect but that he would send me a letter. He fulfilled his assurance to the full. From his letter it appears that the Estimates of the House of Commons, as they have always been envisaged in the past, will now be split into two. One set of Estimates will be the responsibility of yourself and your colleagues on the new Commission, Mr. Speaker. The other set of Estimates will remain with the Treasury as its responsibility.
As recently as last September the Expenditure Committee produced a report on the Civil Service, but it suggested that parliamentary surveillance over the Civil Service was a matter of some importance. In the course of its report it suggested that the Bottomley Committee's recommendation, or what it thought was the Bottomley Committee's recommendation, was a matter of some importance. That was that control over the Estimates of the House of Commons should be transferred from the Treasury to the new House of Commons Commission under the Bill.
We therefore suggested that the Bill was a highly desirable one and that we hoped it would be brought forward shortly. It was brought forward shortly, but, strangely, someone somewhere had been playing about with the simple straightforward recommendation that those Estimates should be transferred to the control of the new Commission. By a mysterious coincidence it would seem—and I stress the word "seem", because there is a great deal of uncertainty, which my amendment is aimed at clarifying—that the House of Commons Commission will have undoubted control over the Estimates for the permanent staff of the House of Commons except that it must keep that staff in line, under another clause, with the regulations of the Treasury and the Civil Service Department.
It is not clear what
expenses…for the service of the House of Commons
may mean. I do not know what it means. I understand that when this general subject was discussed in the Shadow Commission and in the appropriate group of

the Labour Party—and I was present on the latter occasion—this point was not observed. I fully accept my personal responsibility for that fact on the latter occasion. It is by no means clear what has been transferred to the House of Commons. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be telling us in due course.

Mr. William Price: I wish to be helpful if I can and I therefore quote, as my hon. Friend has quoted, from Clause 3(1) which goes very wide, if that is what the Commission chooses to do, and refers to "or any other expenses". If the Commission so chooses, that could include accommodation, printing and a number of other matters. We are not specifying those matters in the Bill, however, because we believe that that would be premature. This is a matter for the Commission.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend has revealed another slight lacuna in this whole problem. My earlier amendment suggested that the Commission should have upon it a majority belonging at least to the Government party, if not to the Government. My hon. Friend the Minister proposed, and the House accepted, that it should have a majority belonging to the Opposition. I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will confirm, as is probably the case, that this Act in effect amends the Standing Orders of the House. I presume that an Act does that since it is obviously superior to the Standing Orders of the House. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Act therefore allows the Commission to propose increases in expenditure without the consent of the Treasury?
The Bill reads:
to such extent as the Commission may determine, of any other expenses incurred for the service of the House of Commons.
That is not very specific, and it is not a good means of financial control either. For example, in a given year, at a given time of year, the Treasury prepares Estimates under the heading Vote 2, Class XIII/A7. That is concerned with the Refreshment Department, if my hon. Friend wants it spelled out. At that stage the Treasury may prepare that, because the Commission may not have decided that it is an expense of the House of Commons. Then, suddenly, in the middle


of the year the Commission may decide, if my hon. Friend is right, that this is an expense of the House of Commons. The Treasury's control ceases even before the question has been approved by the House. All responsibility for it, if my hon. Friend is right, vanishes from the Treasury and moves to the Commission. That seems to be the implication of the Bill which reads, "the Commission may determine". But that is not a good means of financial control over any institution. I would have thought that it was better to spell out in the Bill exactly which Estimates will come under the control of the Commission and which will remain with the Treasury.
There is a vagueness about just how far the Commission can go. If the Commission lasts for as long as the previous Commission, it will last at least 150 years. In the course of that time it may increase its scope or find its scope reduced by the Treasury. But would it not be better to put in the Bill that it has power over the Estimates of the House of Commons full stop, instead of providing that it has power over some of the Estimates and that it may determine for itself which others it may have power over provided that the Treasury, presumably, does not disagree with it?
What will happen if there is an ultimate conflict? I suppose that someone on your behalf, Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Commission, will have to go to court and say that the Treasury is wrong, that the Commission has decided what are expenses of the House of Commons, that the Treasury disagrees and that the High Court must make a declaration as to which of them is right. I do not think that most hon. Members would wish the High Court to determine what are and what are not our expenses. We would prefer that all the Estimates of the House of Commons on all reasonable issues—everything from Members' pay to the lavatory paper—should be the responsibility of the House of Commons Commission. Perhaps one would say that if the House went totally mad and wanted to build a new building, that would not be an appropriate matter for the Commission to decide without the Treasury being consulted, but that on all the normal running expenses of the House we clearly should be consulted through our new institution, the Commission. I

see that a Treasury Minister, my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, is anxious to bring this debate to a halt. He presumably does not like this discussion of the powers of the Treasury.

Mr. Mellish: He does not understand what my hon. Friend is talking about, that is why.

Mr. English: Ex-Treasury Ministers tend to have the same attitude.

Mr. Mellish: It is all gobbledegook.

Mr. English: They all believe that the Treasury should have these powers. Most legislatures throughout the world, including Congress and the European assemblies, determine their own Estimates for their own future expenditure. The question is not decided by the Government for which that legislature is theoretically responsible. That is, in effect, what is being proposed in this amendment.

Mr. Terence Higgins: The amendment might help to clarify the wording of the clause which to me appears remarkably obscure. I have one or two specific points to raise.
The first point at issue is whether the expression "House of Commons" is defined anywhere in the Bill, or is defined elsewhere and is applicable to the Bill. My impression is that that is not so. No doubt if I am wrong the Minister will seek to clarify the point.
The clause is concerned with the expenses incurred for, in the present wording,
the service of the House of Commons.
It is not clear from the wording whether that means the House of Commons as a building or the Members of the House of Commons. I myself would presume that the expression "the House of Commons" means the Members of the House of Commons as a group. If that is so, I should have thought that it would be reasonable to interpret this clause as covering, for example, the salaries of Members and certainly the salaries of Members' secretaries.

Mr. Mellish: I do not understand what this debate is all about. Clause2—

Mr. English: We are not on Clause 2. We are on Clause 3.

Mr. Mellish: I know—but listen, thickhead. Clause 2 relates to what are the functions of the Commission. Clause 1 sets up the Commission. Clause 2 is concerned with the functions of the Commission, and Clause 3 contains the financial provisions to enable it to carry out its functions. With great respect to the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins)—I think that I understand what he is trying to say—the first part of Clause 2 says:
The Commission shall appoint all staff in the House Departments, and shall determine their numbers and their remuneration and other terms and conditions of service.
That is what the Commission's job is. It is the administration of the House. That is what the Bill is all about. I do not know how we have got into this other tangle about the pay of Members of Parliament and everything else.

Mr. Higgins: Perhaps I may seek to clarify the point about which I am concerned. I understand very well that Clause 3 must be related to Clause 2 but, none the less, that is precisely what the amendment is about, as I understand it. Clause 3 says
for the service of the House of Commons.
I do not see that it necessarily follows that Clause 2 overrides Clause 3. However, I shall be very happy if the Minister will state his view and if, in particular, he will state categorically that he has not the slightest doubt that the wording of the Bill is adequate to carry out what he believes the intention of the Bill to be. But I am not immediately convinced about that point.
The second matter I wish to raise is that Clause 3 says
the Commission shall prepare and lay before the House of Commons an estimate for that year.
I am somewhat concerned not only about the expression "prepare", which the Commission might do like any other Government Department, but about the expression "lay before the House". This is a matter which was touched upon a moment or two ago.
I think that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is quite right in saying that an Act of this House would overrule a Standing Order, but I think that the particular Standing Order about which he is concerned is one which, in

effect, gives the Government of the day a monopoly of the right to propose expenditure. It would not, therefore, be possible for us to carry an Act which did that unless that Act or, rather, the Bill before the House had received the Royal Assent agreeing that the Royal Prerogative should be given up in that respect. I agree that this is not a simple matter, but that is my understanding of it.
None the less, as the clause is now drafted it says that the Estimate shall be laid before the House. It should, as I understand it, be laid before the House by the Commission, and not, as would normally be the case, by someone who was moving it on behalf of the Government.
This is obviously a very important matter, because if that is what it did—and I think it is arguable that that is what the wording would do—we should not only be in conflict with the Standing Order, which the hon. Member for Nottingham, West rightly said could be overridden by an Act, but we should be out of order ourselves, because we should be passing an Act, now represented by the Bill, which would override the monopoly of the Government, or the Queen, to propose expenditure.
I have grave doubts on both of these points with regard to the wording, but naturally I should appreciate the Minister's comments on them.

Mr. William Price: I do not think that anybody has ever tried to conceal the fact that as far as the financial independence of the House of Commons is concerned the changes are quite modest. There is a certain vagueness about the present situation, and I readily concede that. How does one define an expense? How does one define what might be capital expenditure? Where does the Treasury fit into the new arrangements?
I think that the matter can be handled only on the basis of talks between people and a good deal of common sense. However, I would not have thought that it would be necessary for the Commission to ask the Treasury for a sum of money to improve the plumbing in this House. I would have thought, however, that if it were suddenly decided that we needed to spend a substantial sum of money on a new parliamentary building, that would


be a matter which clearly the Treasury would have to look at carefully.
What I am saying is that the effect of this amendment would be to amend the cope of the proposed new Commission Estimate under Clause 3(1) to include expenses in connection with the administration of the House of Commons instead of expenses incurred for the service of the House of Commons, on the presumption that the administration is wider than the service, and I do not believe that that is so. If my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) believes that a situation could arise in which it would be so, I would seek to give him the assurance, as far as I am concerned—and I have taken all the advice that is available to me on this matter —that that is not the case.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. English: I am sure that my hon. Friend may be right. He also may be wrong. Will he answer a simple question? Does he agree with me that the courts will have to determine the matter, and will he say that the House of Commons Commission would need legal personality in order to secure a declaration from the courts that the Commission is right and the Treasury is wrong, if the Treasury and the Commission happened to disagree?

Mr. Price: I suppose that, ultimately, everything could be discussed and decided in the courts, but I do not envisage that situation ever arising. I should have thought that we had made it fairly clear in Clause 3(1) that the Commission had considerable powers over presenting its Estimates on any expense that it considered justifiable and legitimate. I believe that that is as far as we should go today.

Mr. English: But in 150 years—that is how long the last Commission lasted—it is just possible that the Commission at some time might disagree with the Treasury over what its powers were. I put it no higher than that. It is just possible that in 150 years it might disagree with the Treasury. If it did, my hon. Friend says that he does not think that the matter would be taken to court. He may, again, be right about that. How does he suggest that this vague set of words would be adjudicated upon?

Mr. Price: I would suggest that the only way in which this could work would be for discussions to take place in the normal way. This goes on all the time between Departments and the Treasury over demands for money. I should have thought that there was no other way in which one could do this and that there would be a Treasury involvement in public expenditure. There is a Treasury involvement.
What I am saying is that whilst these changes are relatively modest, they are, nevertheless, important in the sense that they give the Commission greater powers over spending money on services than we have had in the past, and that is a step in the right direction. However, I do not seek to conceal the fact—I began by saying this—that it is a relatively modest change, and I understand that that is what was envisaged all along.
Perhaps I may add a comment. The Bill as it now stands would make it possible for the Commission to consider with Ministers, for example, House printing or accommodation, in the Commission's Estimates. I know that the main argument against any provision to do so in the Bill is that any such decision would be entirely premature until the Commission has had an opportunity of considering whether such steps would be desirable or practical.
I come back to the point that I tried to make a moment ago. This is one of the reasons why there is a certain vagueness about what exactly is meant, because it is not at all clear at this stage which role the Commission will seek to take upon itself and which responsibilities it will wish to assume. That is something that will be clear in due course.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Is not the answer that in fact as the Bill is drafted the Commission will have power to do virtually whatever it believes right in the interests of the House, but, nevertheless, it would be prudent, as the Minister said, for the Commission to consult the Treasury? As the Bill is drawn, the Commission has the absolute right to do as it pleases.

Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman has put it far better than I had done. That is exactly the situation as I understand it and I think that the House could take


the view that this is as far as we could go.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: On the broad point, my hon. Friend has used the arguments that he used in Standing Committee, saying that this was premature because the Commission had not considered it. Surely this is an argument, is it not, which could be used against almost any change. For instance, was it not an argument which could have been used in relation to some other changes in the Bill in Standing Committee? Clearly, the House must make up its mind how it wants this place administered.

Mr. Price: I gave assurances upstairs that we would be requesting the Commission—and I can put it no stronger—to take a very early look at some of the matters to which my hon. Friend has referred. Printing is one of them, and others think that the Catering Department and its future should be another. We gave that assurance. I cannot, and nor would my hon. Friend, I suspect, wish, to give any direction to the Commission. That does, not arise. But we can certainly ask the Commission to look at these matters urgently and to come back to the House if necessary. I would say to my hon. Friend that this Bill gives to the House of Commons independence in the presentation of Estimates within the scope of Clause 3 (1), but as I understand it, it was never intended to take the House of Commons completely outside the general framework of the control of public expenditure. Under the Bill as it stands the Commission has power to include within the scope of its Estimates any expenses related to the service of the House of Commons and we do not see this being any narrower than is proposed in the amendment. On that basis I ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Higgins: I do not consider that a very satisfactory reply. The hon. Gentle man has not answered my second point. It is not good enough to say that this will be a matter of common sense, for if it were all a matter of common sense we would not need the Bill at all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I have only just taken over the Chair but I understand that the hon.

Member has already spoken on this amendment.

Mr. Higgins: I was intervening.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may speak if he asks leave of the House, and if it is granted I shall allow him to continue.

Mr. Higgins: May I ask leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I feel it right that one should have an answer on the highly technical point I have raised? This is not a matter of partisan debate in any way. I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to press that point.
If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that in some matters with regard to the actual provision of services of the House the Commission would be able, in effect, to put matters forward whether or not the Treasury objected, and that in other respects the Commission would not be able to do so. That is what I understood the Minister to say. It seems to me to be an extraordinarily unusual proposition. I hope he will reply to my other point—whether in the clause we are debating, and in the context of the amendment we are debating, the expression
shall prepare and lay an estimate before the House
means that the Commission will in fact present and lay the Estimate and that that will not be done by a Government Minister. This is a crucial and very important point.

Mr. William Price: I can deal with the second point raised by the hon. Gentleman more easily than with the first. It is my understanding that it will come from and be presented by the Commission.
On the first point, we are in a grey area. There is a degree of vagueness here. But if the hon. Gentleman is asking for a technical answer, I suspect that it is a fundamental rule of our procedures that a charge cannot be taken into consideration unless it is demanded by the Crown or recommended from the Crown and no public charge can be incurred except on the initiative of the Crown. That is what my note says, and it is certainly my understanding.

Mr. Higgins: It is very difficult on Report to make this kind of point. I am not unaware of the point that has been made by the hon. Gentleman but the first part of his reply is quite inconsistent with the second part. If the Commission is to lay the Estimate before the House, that overrides the long-standing tradition, going back I believe to the year 1500 if not to 1300, that it can be done only by the Government. We should know whether the Commission is to be allowed to present Estimates to the House or whether only the Government may do so.

Mr. Price: The Commission may do so.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: When I intervened I was concerned about the general position of the Refreshment Department and I am glad that my hon. Friend gave us the assurance he gave that he and the Government want the Commission to look at this Department. The House should bear in mind that we have already had a full inquiry into this Department under my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), which recommended, after considerable investigation, that it should be a separate Department. Unless considerable action has been taken since that report was produced there is a need for a tremendous amount of change in that Department, as recommended in the report. There is a need for an improvement in the terms and conditions of service of the staff there.
One of the ways of bringing that about, and doing so rapidly, is for the Commission to establish it as a separate Department of the House so that it can have the correct status and so that its staff are employed by the Commission and there is no doubt about their status here or about the terms and conditions under which they serve the House. I would reinforce the point made by the Minister and would hope that the Commission will get on and give consideration to this very important Department of the House which on some occasions in the past has received very shabby treatment from hon. Members—not as individuals, but from the House as a whole.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: If hon. Gentlemen who have raised queries about the Commission and its responsibility will take it from me, my

opinion is that the Commission will be in charge, like a Government Department preparing its Estimates, but it will not be able to authorise them. The Government will have control over that. That is my impression.

Dr. Glyn: Let us be clear that under the wording in the Bill it will have to be the Commission and not a Treasury officer who comes to present Estimates. I do not see anything abnormal in that. It still has to go through Parliament. It may he said that 700 years a Treasury Minister has had to do it, but I have no objection to the Commission doing it, for it would probably do it better than a Treasury Minister.

Mr. English: rose—

Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend has already spoken.

Mr. English: My right hon. Friend was only Chief Whip. He forgets Standing Order No. 55. You do not, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What do I not forget?

Mr. English: Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), you do not forget Standing Order No. 55, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made a rather strange statement in answer to the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). He said he was advised that whatever the Commission presented to Parliament would need the Treasury's consent. He was advised that that was some kind of fundamental rule of the constitution. I do not believe that there are many fundamental rules of the British constitution. They are laid down mainly by this House or by the courts of law. But it has certainly been held by the courts that an Act of Parliament which has been passed by both Houses and given Royal Assent overrules a mere Resolution of this House of Commons. I believe the case is Boles v. Bank of England earlier in this century.
The situation, therefore, is that my hon. Friend must be wrong for the simple reason that the rule about not imposing a charge on the people unless it is proposed by a Treasury Minister is merely a Standing Order of this House. I believe


that it is a Standing Order which was passed shortly after the Restoration in 1660. It is not a basic rule going back to the Middle Ages. It is a very simple Standing Order of the House which could be altered or amended by the House, and my hon. Friend is proposing that it probably should be, but it would certainly be amended by Act of Parliament anyway.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. William Price: We should get this point absolutely clear if we can. If I have muddied the water, I apologise to all concerned. I take my guidance from subsection (1), which says clearly:
the Commission shall prepare and lay before the House of Commons an estimate for that year of the expenses of the House Departments and, to such extent as the Commission may determine, of any other expenses incurred for the service of the House

Mr. English: It does not say that that Estimate may be an increase on the preceding year. That is the point that is being made by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. Price: I do not think that I suggested—if I did, I was wrong—that the Commission had the power to authorise that increase. What I am saying is that it has the power to prepare and to present the Estimate and that the matter will be subject to the usual discussions.

Mr. English: The confusion is worse confounded. Not even the Treasury has the power to authorise it. Only this House has that power. The real question is, can it come before the House without the Treasury's consent? My hon. Friend is conspicuously evading answering that question. It may be that he does not know the answer. If that is so, why is he not honest enough to say so? He has been asked the question from both sides of the House. It is a very simple one. The Bill says:
the Commission shall prepare and lay before the House of Commons an estimate for that year of the expenses of the House"—

Mr. Mellish: That is obvious. It is so obvious that I do not know why we are talking about it.

Mr. English: My right hon. Friend seems to think that it is obvious. I am grateful to him. I take it that he thinks

that the subsection means that the Treasury's power over the Estimates of the House ceases once the Bill receives the Royal Assent, to the extent that Clause 3 (1) says. It is somewhat vague as to what that extent is.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary seems to be trying to evade the issue. He seems to be saying at one point that the Treasury's power continues and at another point that it ceases. Which is the case? That is all he has been asked by the hon. Member for Worthing and myself.
The object of the amendment is very simple. We, the majority of Members, wish to have the same power over the expenditure of the House as other legislatures in other countries have. We assumed that Clause 3 (1) gave that power to the Commission which would represent the House. My hon. Friend is not saying that that is so, nor, clearly, is he saying that it is not.
Will my hon. Friend clearly and specifically say whether the Treasury's former power over the Estimates of the House is transferred by the Bill, when it becomes an Act, to the Commission? It is a very clear question. It is a matter of great importance to every hon. Member, every Committee of the House and every officer of the House. Will my hon. Friend kindly answer it, clearly and simply?

Mr. Francis Pym: It seems to me that, arising out of the debate on the amendment, and not absolutely directly related to its wording, a substantial issue has arisen. The House would like a substantive explanation of the Government's view on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).
We are on Report, and there is no motion for Third Reading. I suggest that the Government should make in another place a substantive statement on what is a very fundamental issue.
The question is, how do we authorise expenditure? Until now, it has always been done by the Treasury, by the Government, moving a motion from the Government Dispatch Box. We are now making what is recognised on all sides to be a departure, in that the Commission


will lay before the House an estimate of expenditure for the House.
There seems to be a conflict there with previous practice. The point had not occurred to me before I listened to the debate, but I think that it is very important. The most appropriate way to handle it may be for the Government to make a substantive statement in another place when the Bill is considered there.

Mr. William Price: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that suggestion, which I think is helpful.
I began by saying that I thought we were in a greyish area and that there was a degree of vagueness. I have made the position as clear as I can, but if what I have said does not satisfy the House, I undertake to do what the hon. Gentleman asks so that there shall be no misunderstandings.

Mr. Higgins: I am grateful for the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), but I am a little doubtful whether it is possible to make a statement on this issue in another place. Perhaps I may take the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to mean that if it is not possible the statement will be made here, which I think would in any case be more appropriate.
What worries me fundamentally is that if the hon. Gentleman is correct in his answer—that the Commission will prepare and lay an Estimate before this House, contrary to all precedent, which is what only the Government can do that—the Bill might well be proceeding through the House without the Royal Assent having been given to its being debated when it should have been given. If that is so, we shall be committing a very unusual act.
I hope that in making a response on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend the Minister will take that point into account.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Lord President can be formally conceived to have nodded assent.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 4

THE HOUSE DEPARTMENTS

Mr. William Price: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 12 at end insert—
(1A) In this section 'the Department of the Official Report of the House of Commons' means that branch of the Department of the Speaker which immediately before the passing of this Act had the function of producing that Report, and accordingly on that passing that branch shall become a separate department and shall cease to be part of the Department of the Speaker, without prejudice however to any power exercisable by the Commission in relation to either department under subsection (2) below.".
In Committee an amendment was accepted providing that the Department of the Official Report of the House of Commons should be added to the list of House Departments in subsection (1). The Department of the Official Report is at present a constituent part of the Speaker's Department, and without a formal separate identity. The effect of the amendment is to remove any doubt as to what is meant by
the Department of the Official Report of the House of Commons
at subsection (1)(f), and to establish its separate identity from the Department of the Speaker as soon as the Bill is enacted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

SHORT TITLE, ETC.

Mr. William Price: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 4, line 12 leave out "1st August 1978" and insert "1st January 1979".
The effect of the amendment is to defer the Commission's assumption of its staffing responsibilities as the statutory employer of staff in the House Departments from 1st August 1978 until 1st January 1979. I apologise for the change. I think it regrettable, but we believe it to be inevitable.
It had been hoped earlier that the Bill would be enacted in time to provide a sufficient interval between Royal Assent and 1st August to enable the Commission to assume its statutory employer responsibilities on that date. The minimum period required between Royal


Assent and the Commission's assumption of its employer responsibilities is estimated at about one month. This should enable the full Commission to be appointed and the necessary preliminary administrative arrangements to be made —for example, establishment of the Board of Management, the appropriate delegation of powers, the appointment of the accounting officer and the like. It would seem essential for the House to be in Session during this period and thus for Members and officials to be available.
It now seems impossible for all the stages of the Bill, including passage through the House of Lords, to be completed before mid-July at the earliest. There will thus not be a sufficient interval before the Summer Recess, and 1st August to enable the 1st August implementation date to stand.
The amendment accordingly proposes a new implementation date for Clause 2, and related provisions, of 1st January 1979. That would seem the earliest convenient date which will with certainty give the House enough time, after Royal Assent and whilst in Session, to elect the Back Bench members of the Commission and for the Commission and officials to make the necessary administrative preparations before the Commission takes on its staffing responsibilities.
The commencement date—Estimates for 1979–80—for the Commission to take over responsibility for presenting the Estimates for House Departments, dealt with in Clause 3(1), is unaffected.
I repeat that I think it a pity that we have had to do this, but we see no alternative. I hope that the House will approve.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1

SCHEDULE 1—THE COMMISSION

Mr. William Price: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 5, line 27, at beginning insert
'Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also discuss Amendment No. 20.

Mr. Price: Under paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 as at present drafted all members of the Commission can remain Commissioners after a Dissolution until—in

the case of ex officio members such as Mr. Speaker and the Leader of the House—other persons are appointed to their offices or, in the case of the non-ex officio members, for example, the nominee of the Leader of the Opposition and the three Back Benchers, other members are appointed or nominated in their places.
The purpose and effect of the amendment is to provide that, in the case of non-ex officio members of the Commission, they shall be required, following a Dissolution, to resign from the Commission "forthwith" if "it appears" that they have either not been nominated as a candidate at the ensuing General Election or, having been nominated, are not elected. The effect of the amendment, accordingly, is that such ex officio members of the Commission will not be entitled to remain Commissioners until their successors are nominated or appointed.

Mr. English: I am grateful to the Government for tabling this amendment, which arises in response to an amendment which I moved in Committee when an assurance was given that the Government would stop this extraordinary likelihood that people who might even be in another place would be sitting on the Commission representing this House. I think that the Government have dealt with the matter, with one possible exception. I can see why the Government wish to continue with Mr. Speaker in office even if he is not standing again for Parliament or is not re-elected. He would continue in office, presumably, until his successor was selected. I can see why the same might apply to the Lord President of the Council who, again, would continue in office until his successor was appointed, if there was a change of Government.
I am not quite clear why this provision should apply to a Shadow Leader of the House. I think that it is extremely unlikely, but it might be that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) decided not to stand at the next General Election and took a peerage instead He would, apparently, still be entitled to sit on the House of Commons Commission. The amendment is nearly right but I wonder whether, on the way between here and another place, my hon. Friend will see whether a bit of tidying up is necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 5, line 29, leave out from "place" to end of line 30 and insert—
(3) Where at any time after Parliament has been dissolved it appears that a member of the Commission who is not an ex officio member—

(a) has not been validly nominated as a candidate at the ensuing general election; or
(b) although so nominated, has not been elected a Member of Parliament at that election,
that member shall resign from the Commission forthwith; but nothing in sub-paragraph (2) above or this sub-paragraph shall be taken as preventing any such member from resigning otherwise than in pursuance of this sub-paragraph.".

No. 21, in page 6, line 6, leave out "rescindment" and insert "revocation".

No. 22, in page 6, line 7, leave out "presented in accordance with" and insert "under".—[Mr. William Price.]

4.45 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 6, line 7, at end insert—
(5) Notwithstanding any delegation under this paragraph, the Commission shall retain the ultimate responsibility for considering representations made in relation to matters affecting the interests, in connection with their employment, of staff in the House Departments by trade unions who are recognised by the Commission in respect of such staff, and for the conduct of consultations and negotiations about such maters with those trade unions.
(6) In sub-paragraph (5) above "trade union" has the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 and "recognised", in relation to a trade union, has the same meaning as in Part IV of the Employment Protection Act 1975.".
We have made good progress with the Bill so far and I hope that we can make equally good progress with this amendment. I hope to put the point to the House in a way which will win the general acceptance of bon Members.
The purpose of the amendment is to confirm the ultimate responsibility of the new House of Commons Commission for considering representations from recognised trade unions on behalf of the staff of the House notwithstanding any delegation of its staffing powers to heads of House Departments. Under the provisions of the Bill the Commission will become the employer of staff employed in the House Departments. The Com-

mission will thus become responsible, as employed, in respect of matters arising from the body of employment legislation applied to the staff of the House by Section 122 of the Employment Protection Act 1975, as amended by paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 of this Bill. This includes rights in relation to trade union recognition and what follows from this, set out in Sections 11 to 15 of the Employment Protection Act 1975.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made it clear in Committee, when this question was raised, that staff representatives would already have the opportunity, without the need for an amendment of this kind, to make their case direct to the Commission on points which they had been unable to resolve through the usual consultative procedures. Since then, however, it has been strongly represented to me by a number of hon. Members and by union representatives that an explicit statutory confirmation of the position in the Bill would be welcomed.
I am aware that fears have been expressed to the effect that such a provision might lead to abuse and that unions might insist on their right of access to the Commission to an unreasonable extent. I do not believe that these fears are justified. The amendment makes it quite clear that the Commission's responsibility is an ultimate responsibility I am confident that the unions will recognise that their right of access must be used with discrimination and that they must recognise the existence of that word "ultimate" and that the normal channels for staff representations must first he fully utilised before such a step is taken.
As for non-union members of the stall —and I realise that there are considerable numbers of such people—this provision in no way restricts the Commission from considering their representations, as the Commission may decide. It is one of the principal aims of this legislation, as it was of the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley), to foster the development of full consultative procedures among the staff of the House and in the working of the Whitley system. In confirming the Commission's responsibilities as a statutory employer in this forthright way the amendment will make an important contribution towards this aim. It is for that


reason that I commend the amendment to the House.
I know that some concern has been expressed in the discussions that have taken place that in some way or other we were doing something different from that which I have sought to describe this afternoon. I can assure the House that that is not the case. What I should like to emphasise—and I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough will confirm this—is that one of the reasons for the establishment of this Commission is that we believe that it will make an important contribution to better relations in the House of Commons and in its administration generally. It is partly for that reason that I put the amendment forward. There are many other major reasons, concerning the whole administration of the House of Commons, which led to the establishment of my right hon. Friend's Committee and to its report, but one of the factors that we have had in mind has been the necessity to attempt to improve relations generally.
That is the sole purpose of this amendment. I believe that what we are doing is carrying out the general spirit of what we said in our Committee discussions. I had a report from my hon. Friend about the Committee proceedings and I read the report of those proceedings. What we have put forward is in full conformity with what was said in Committee. It is solely in that respect that we have brought forward this amendment. I very much hope that the House will agree to it. It is a modest improvement but none the less an improvement.

Mr. Pym: I rise to oppose this amendment and to say that I regret that the Government decided to table it. I do not think, and nor do many of my hon. Friends, that it will have the beneficial effect which the Lord President has said he hopes it will have. The amendment concerns the question of the access of the staff and its representatives to the Commission.
The first reason why I regret the amendment is that it is essentially unnecessary. By implication it indicates the possibility of a lack of trust, a lack of mutual confidence within this building, and I do not think that that is the position.
Everybody knows that the staff side has direct access to the authorities in this House and, in the context of the Bill, has and would have access to the Commission. No one at any stage has suggested anything else. We all wish for that normal direct access to be available, and I think that all of us on each side of the House would see to it that that was so. Speaking for myself and my hon. Friends, I can say that we have received no representations of any kind which suggest anything else.
The Minister, in Committee, gave an assurance about direct access. Quite frankly, I do not think that that is in dispute. We all know and accept that what he said then is true. Nevertheless, as the Leader of the House said just now, some representations on the staff side have been made to some Members of Parliament. The weight of that representation, apparently, has been that the assurance given by the Minister, and the understanding that we have all had in the House about the importance of that assurance, was not good enough. If that is how they felt—and I think it is understandable—then in my view our response should have been that a reaffirmation of the assurance about direct access would have been adequate. The Government could and should have given that reaffirmation of the assurance. Certainly we on our side would also have given it.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: May I ask for clarification? The right hon. Gentleman said that the staff had made representations to some Members of the House. Will he not agree that representations have been made by the staff side to the Leader of the House officially, so that the Members of the Shadow Commission knew what were the feelings of the staff?

Mr. Pym: The Leader of the House indicated that. He said so just now, and that is so.
I think we are all agreed, and always have been, that we are extremely well served in the House by the staff in all departments. I would say that mutual trust most certainly exists, and has existed for a very long time. An assurance about access has been given by the Leader of the House. It was given, of course, privately, but also publicly, in Committee and on the Floor of the House. It comes from the Government for whom he speaks,


supported by the Opposition of the day, and no doubt the whole House. I find it almost incredible that that assurance should not have been accepted. At any rate, that is the proposition, I think, that is behind the amendment, and what the Leader of the House has sought to indicate. But I think that those assurances, given in good faith and genuinely by right hon. and hon. Members, would be accepted by the staff.

Mr. English: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The assurance was given to me. I interpreted the assurance to mean that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would go away and consider putting in the Bill a fairly innocuous statement such as we have in this amendment. That has been done. I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman is objecting to my hon. Friend carrying out the assurance he gave to me.

Mr. Pym: I am not referring only to the assurance that was given in Committee, with the usual Committee background. What I am saying is that an assurance to the staff of this House of direct access to the Commission, given in good faith on behalf of the Government, and on behalf of the Opposition and other Members of Parliament, would be adequate from the point of view of the staff, and that they would accept it. That is my first point.
I suppose that if a statutory provision of this kind were a normal and usual part of our legislative provisions, it could indeed be argued by the staff that a similar provision in this Bill would be appropriate. Indeed, the staff would have every justification for asking for it. But the fact is that a provision such as this amendment provides is not a normal part of our legislative process, or of our statute law. Indeed, it is unique. None of my right hon. or hon. Friends has been able to find any precedent for a provision of this kind. Certainly nothing like it has been required before for the Whitley procedure or the Civil Service procedure, and therefore we are breaking new ground here.
I was interested to see that the Leader of the Liberal Party had tabled an amendment in this area, but on a different basis. For some reason he withdrew it yesterday. He was trying to provide an alternative

method of fulfilling the wish of the Lord President, but in a different way. In point of fact, he had taken a precedent from another Act of Parliament. My argument would not be valid in regard to his amendment, and I will not go into it because it is no longer on the Order Paper.
My view on the amendment before us is that it ought not to be passed, because I think that a precedent of this kind ought not to be set. Most especially, I think that it ought not to be set in a Bill about the administration of the House of Commons, which on all matters ought to be a non-party, non-controversial issue. Essentially, the Bill has been an agreed measure, without any controversy at all. I am sure that I am right in saying that there was consultation between the Government—and perhaps hon. Members as well—and the unions—before the Bill was ever proposed. It was known before the Bill was ever proposed that the staff side, whether the union or not, wanted the Bill to come on to the statute book. At no stage was any mention made, as far as I know, privately, and certainly not publicly, that there should be a provision of this kind included in it.
I appreciate that there have been representations since it was produced. I completely accept that, and it is quite usual for the House of Commons to make amendments of this kind in the passage of legislation. But I still think that it is a mistake to break new ground and create a statutory precedent in a Bill of this kind.
As the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) indicated, he raised the matter in Committee. It was very fully discussed and an assurance was sought not only by him but also by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley), whose report is the basis of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said:
What we want… is that the staff side should have direct access to the Commission. If we could agree on that and give that assurance to my hon. Friends, we might avoid a Division.
The Minister replied:
I certainly give that assurance, I thought that I had done so. I gladly repeat it"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27th April 1978; c. 33.]
But the Minister concluded the debate by saying that after what had been said


he would go away and think about it again in the usual manner. That is what he has done, in the usual parliamentary manner. But I am still of the view that an assurance, given genuinely on our part and, of course, on the Government's part, would be and should be adequate.
I have a further objection to the amendment, and that concerns the terms in which it is drawn. I draw attention to the amendment, in which the proposed paragraph (5) refers to
trade unions who are recognised by the Commission in respect of such staff.
It seems to me that that is very much to particularise those representatives of the staff they represent who shall by this means have guaranteed statutory access to the Commission. It does not refer to all staff. It does not refer to all trade unions. It does not refer to those members of the staff who are not in trade unions.
I should have thought it reasonable to argue that if the assurances asked for by the staff are not enough and the Government think it necessary to write in a statutory provision such as this, it is curious that they should single out some trade unions and some staff instead of including the whole staff. I should have thought that by implication, if nothing else, it would narrow the right that members of the staff would have to appeal to the Commission, or to take their case ultimately to the Commission, if they were not represented by trade unions recognised by the Commission. It seems to me that there is a slight contradiction here in the case that was put by the Lord President.
If it is the position that any guarantee given by right hon. and hon. Members is not adequate for the staff, I should have thought that they all ought to have had in one way or another the same statutory right. I think it would be true to say that, notwithstanding this amendment, other members of the staff who were not perhaps trade unionists, or who were represented by trade unions not recognised by the Commission, would still have the right of access. I do not think that anyone has sought to pretend that they would not. But it seems to me to be very curious to make a statutory differentiation

between the staff represented by recognised unions and all the rest of the staff. I think that it would have implications, and that is my third criticism of the amendment.
In opposing the amendment, I hope and believe that I have made it absolutely plain that the normal, ordinary access that any member of the staff would have to the Commission is and would be available in the case of any representations of the staff to the Commission, as asked for by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough in Committee. For that matter, in the last analysis any member of the staff could go to the Commission if the situation on a staff dispute matter reached that point.
5.0 p.m.
The Leader of the House said that he thought the amendment would contribute to good and harmonious relationships, and I share that objective. But so far from contributing to these good and harmonious relationships between every one of us in this Palace, whether we are Members of the House or members of the staff, I fear that the end result may not be that. In any case, it is a departure from our normal legislative practice. It is controversial, which is the last thing which we ought to contemplate or engage in in any Bill which deals with the administration of our own affairs in this House. I think that we ought to avoid anything of that kind.
For all these reasons, I hope very much that it will be possible to proceed with the Bill, and without the amendment, in the full knowledge that there is, and will be, direct access for any member of the staff to the Commission if the normal procedures of discussion and negotiation require that that ultimate step should be taken by the staff concerned.

Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Black-ley): If the Opposition welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance, I find it difficult to understand why they do not also welcome the fact that that assurance is actually written into the Bill and given statutory recognition. It seems fitting to me that the right of employees of this House and, therefore, of the new Commission should have the same statutory rights as those employed elsewhere. It


was for that reason that on the Employment Protection Act I moved an amendment to include employees of this House. I am glad to say that that was accepted.
By analogy, the same proposition has been accepted on Report by my right hon. Friend with regard to this Bill. There is an argument for staff recognition on the Commission itself, for example. One could go that far, but that may be a little too revolutionary at this stage. Although I would favour that provision myself, I recognise, as I think do the unions themselves, that so advanced a stage is unlikely and would be particularly controversial. That controversy can be avoided.
Members of the House of Commons staff, and its recognised trade unions, attach a great deal of importance to the right of access to the Commission. A great deal of importance is attached particularly by the recognised trade unions among the staff of this House. At last, after one and three-quarter centuries, we have regularised the position of the employer in the shape of the new statutory employers, namely, the Commission. Until now no one seemed to know who the employer in this House was. Access, is, therefore, the necessary corollary to setting up the Commission. I understand that in the past it was emphasised that a public statement to the effect that there would be access was welcome. Therefore, if it was welcomed, I would say a fortiori that it should be even more strongly welcomed when it is actually written into the Bill and made a statutory provision.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), I was given to understand that an undertaking was given in Committee at least to meet the relevant trade unions in order to discuss this proposition. I understand that that discussion has taken place and has culminated in the tabling of Amendment No. 23. Therefore, it meets the wishes of the staff and adds to the mutual trust between the employer and the staff in that respect. Therefore, it cannot be said that in any sense this derogates from the mutual trust which has already been referred to.
There have been various precedents. I notice that Amendment No. 6, which has been withdrawn by the Liberal Party, took precedents from the Gas and Post Office Acts and similar Acts with regard

to public employment. I may be wrong, but so far as I can remember the latest precedent comes from the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act. That was indeed a welcome Act. If I remember correctly, the form of words used in that Act was "the relevant trade union". That wording is acceptable in this amendment. I believe that the trade unions concerned should be the bodies with which the new statutory employer consults. That is not exclusive of any other organisations, but it safeguards the rights of those trade unions which by and large represent the members of the staff of this House.
I believe that the amendment embodies a valid and valuable principle in relation to consultation with the trade unions which represent the interests of staff. It should be recognised that in moving this amendment the Government themselves have recognised a very important principle. I am sure that the motivation behind the Liberal amendment, which has unfortunately been withdrawn—it was worthy of discussion—was that it included one point which is not emphasised in the form of words used in Amendment No. 23, namely, safety, health and welfare. Goodness knows, not only the staff but Members of this House have to put up with conditions in regard to safety, health and welfare which no one outside this Palace would accept. However, that amendment has been withdrawn and I make no further comment on it, following the precedent of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire.

Mr. David Steel: I note the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for Liberal amendments which are not before us. That is indeed a new form of debate in the House. However, the hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that the non-union members of the staff, who are I think about 50 per cent., should rest on the assurance given by all of us that they have the right of representation to the Commission and that they should be satisfied with that, but that somehow the organised trade union members are so weak and powerless that they must have a statutory provision. That appears to be the burden of what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Rose: My follow-up to that is that it is the right of every one of those


non-union members to join a trade union and become a member of a recognised trade union. That would immediately give them that statutory right. If they so choose, they can stand or fall by their non-representation, but if they are not organised in a trade union it is very difficult for them to consult my right hon. Friend or the employers on anything, because they are not organised so to consult. Therefore, the Leader of the Liberal Party advances a very good argument in favour of trade unionism.
All I would say is that the Liberal amendment—I do not really want to debate amendments which are not on the Amendment Paper—would have dealt with any organisations appearing to be appropriate. That could mean a breakaway organisation or any unrepresentative association. We do have a structure here of organisations which are recognised as being the trade unions—four of them—which by and large represent the interests of the members of the staff. They have consulted my right hon. Friend and have arrived at a form of wording.
We have been through all this argument before, not least when we discussed the Industrial Relations Act. I do not want to rehearse all that again. However, I believe that the wording of Amendment No. 23 is the appropriate form of wording. It is certainly acceptable to the trade unions involved. It is an amendment which is, therefore, acceptable to the organised staff of this House.
I therefore commend the amendment to the whole House, including the Liberal Party, notwithstanding the minor difference it may have with regard to this form of wording. It is, above all, the result of consultation. It does not set up any machinery or provide for any complex structure. It merely gives the right of access by statute to the trade unions, and takes nothing away from other members of the staff. On that basis it should not be contentious and should be accepted by all sides of the House.

Mr. Hal Miller: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) with regret. I found to my disappointment that as he went on I dis-

agreed with him more and more, although we share a responsibility to a trade union association of civil servants.
The hon. Member spoke of "mutual trust". On every example that he cited in support of that proposition, he raised a picture of a great deal of controversy. He spoke of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act, but that got through the House in circumstances which did no credit whatever to the Government, and it was discussed in an atmosphere that was far from being one of mutual trust.
The hon. Member went on to say that of course those employees of the Commission who are not represented by unions have a right of access and consultation but those in unions have a statutory right. How does he expect to increase mutual trust and respect in that way among those who seek to serve us? He went on to say how greatly the proposed amendment had been welcomed, but it cannot have escaped his attention that that amendment has raised a great deal of discussion and controversy in some quarters among those who support us in this House. I do not think that the hon. Member gave a fair record. The longer he went on the more difficult he made it to support the amendment.
I still do not understand why this amendment is necessary. As I understood the Leader of the House, he referred to several sections of the Employment Protection Act and the schedules of that Act which apply to employees of the Commission. I understood that these were statutory rights of general application.
I sought to raise this point on Committee. I asked whether there were general rights to be applied, and why we should seek to go beyond that, especially if it aroused controversy. It is most unfortunate that we should reach a position where the House might divide on a measure for the administration of the House, affecting all those who help and support us in our work. The basis of mutual trust is that the help and support will be given indiscriminately without fear or favour to Members in all parts of the House. There is a grave danger of this being impaired if we are driven to a Division. I cannot see why it is necessary if general statutory provisions apply.
5.15 p.m.
This is very serious and I cannot see how the Leader of the House has managed to get us into this position. I cannot see why it is not possible to resolve this matter in some other way—

Mr. English: The hon. Member should look to his own side.

Mr. Miller: The hon. Member comments from his usual position. The Leader of the House must be gravely conscious of his responsibilities. I was not clear whether the Bill would apply to the Refreshment Department. This is one of the most difficult areas and one in which a difficulty is expected in a short time —I believe from 6.30 p.m. onwards. Yet this Department is not yet included within the scope of the Bill. Therefore, one of the most difficult areas is not being touched either by the Bill or by the amendment that is proposed.
Not only is the amendment unnecessary, it is also irrelevant to the main source of difficulty. There is no valid reason for supporting it, and I cannot understand why there should be a better form of assurance for one section of the workers who help and support us and a lower form of assurance for the others. If there is not some distinction between the two forms of assurance, why is the amendment necessary?
I wish that the Government had found it possible to deal with the queries that I raised in Committee about the functioning of the Whitley Committee machinery. Some complaints have been made to me about the functioning of that machinery. There is no guarantee that the inclusion of the amendment will resolve these difficulties. The questions that I asked in Committee were how that machinery was functioning and whether it was functioning in a different way in the House from the way it functions in other Civil Service Departments. We have not received any replies on this point, yet this is the real substance of our argument.
The Government amendment does not meet the major difficulties to which I have referred, or the queries about the functioning of the Whitley Committee machinery. That is why I certainly will not support the Government amendment.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) has already expressed the view that there has not been the happiest relationship in the past on the working of the Whitley machinery. I do not know whether the Government will answer that point, but I am certainly not in a position to do so. I have heard of these difficulties not only from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch and my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth), but from others.
As Chairman of the Committee I always said that it was our intention that legalisation should be kept to the minimum. We wanted that because we were anxious that the changes brought about should be made in a spirit of friendly co-operation. I did not want a reference in the Bill to the Speaker's staff, and for the same reason I would have preferred that this amendment had not been made. I had hoped that mutual understanding and trust could prevail.
In our report to Parliament we sought a solution drawing upon the present well-established and operating departments, their loyalty and experience, which we believed could provide greater flexibility for responding to the changing needs in the future.
By this means we felt that the quality of the staff in the House of Commons at all levels would be secured and more understanding attitudes might be taken. It was our aim that those with ability could rise to the top in every Department.
The amendment before us is in keeping with the spirit of the Bill. It arises out of discussions in Standing Committee where the majority—indeed, almost everyone—accepted that a move of this kind should be made. I am sure that the staff will recognise that the normal trade union procedure is that grievances and problems have to be settled with the management. It is only on a matter of principle which in the last resort protest should be made to the Commission.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that all the assurances sought in the amendment had been given, but I would remind him that it binds this House and not subsequent Parliaments. Therefore, if the House rejects the amendment, we shall do more harm than good. The staff will take


the view that if Parliament intended that it should have the right of access to the Commission, it should be contained in the Bill. I believe that it will worsen relations with the staff if the amendment is opposed and I plead with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues not to oppose it.

Mr. English: I am grateful for the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley). I wish to support what he said.
Perhaps I should give a little of the history of this amendment. At the beginning of the Standing Committee I thought that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and his hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) were basically right. I thought that there was no reason or necessity for an amendment of this character. It was only subsequent events that pointed to its necessity.
I tabled in Committee Amendment No. 6, and I freely admit that I tabled that proposal somewhat tongue in cheek. That amendment provided that "three members of the staff" should be elected to the Commission
in accordance with such regulations as such staff may by secret ballot approve by a majority of those voting".
Liberal Members will understand that I, as a Labour Member, consulted the trade unions and I found that they slightly objected to what I had tabled because it did not specifically say that the workers' representatives should be members of trade unions.
If we had been arguing here and now about that matter, I could well understand what the issue would have concerned. It would be about a matter which has been discussed all over Europe—in Germany, in the Brussels Commission and here—relating to whether workers' representatives on boards of management should be representative of all the workers inside and outside trade unions or only those who are members of trade unions.
The intriguing aspect was that when I consulted the trade unions on the premises about that matter, they made their point—the Members of the Liberal Party in the House may have disagreed with

them—but they said "What we want is a simple amendment stating that we should be consulted about our pay and conditions—that is all." I said I would table that provision. I did so and it became Amendment No. 32. This debate springs from that amendment.
It will not surprise the House to learn that I did not obtain the total support of the Standing Committee for the idea that there should be workers' representatives on the Commission. Opposition Members did not support it, nor did many hon. Members on my own side. That latter point surprised me a little because many hon. Members on my own side would like to see worker representatives on the boards of other institutions. If hon. Members in any part of the House advocate the placing of workers' representatives on company boards, I suggest that it is not unreasonable that we should start in this place and have some staff representatives on our own Commission.
However, that is not the issue to be dealt with on this amendment. I am intrigued why there should be such argument about what is the issue here. The Minister, realising that I had received a little more support on the mere point of consultation with trade unions, sensibly and simply gave me an assurance that he would go away and consider the matter and he went away and did so. I do not think I am telling tales out of school if I say that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was perhaps a little surprised to learn how little in the last 20 years Ministers of any party had consulted trade unions—certainly how little the trade union representatives on the premises felt that they have been consulted by successive Ministers in successive Governments. Whatever the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire may think, the trade union representatives in the House of Commons feel that in the past they have been positively discouraged from even talking to Ministers of the Crown.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Or Members.

Mr. English: Possibly even to Members, as my hon. Friend says. If members of trade unions—who, as the Leader of the Liberal Party said, comprise some 50 per cent. of the staff on the premises—are discouraged from consultation and


are told by their superior officers on the staff of the House of Commons that it is undesirable for them as trade unionists to approach Ministers of the Crown or Members of Parliament to consult on issues that concern them, how much more difficult is it for individuals who do not happen to be trade unionists to consult Ministers of the Crown or Members of Parliament whose decisions affect pay and conditions of the staff?

Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman has reported, I am sure faithfully, to the House what was said to him about the possibility of trade union members being discouraged from talking to Ministers and heads of Departments, but is that true? I am not sure that it is true. I should be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman has consulted heads of Departments or Ministers to see whether any kind of discouragement or encouragement was given. Is what he is saying accurate, because I am not sure that it is?

Mr. English: It would be very difficult to prove what heads of Departments in the House have said to their trade unionists but I have not the slightest doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman is consenting on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench to a breach of the "previous Administration" rule, I would accept his consent so that the Civil Service can reveal the precise number of occasions and the precise length of time that hon. Members in both parties—if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would also consent—when Ministers of the Crown consulted trade union officers on the premises. I accept his assurance if he is saying on behalf of the Opposition that the "previous Administration" rule can be broken into so that we can ascertain the precise number of occasions when Ministers of the Crown consulted the trade unions.

Mr. Pym: I was making the point that the hon. Gentleman appeared to be saying as a matter of fact that there had been positive discouragement of the kind he indicated. I was questioning whether that was true. It might be a matter of opinion or a view held by such people that such discouragement was given—but was it? I do not think he should give the impression that there was such discouragement without giving much more positive evidence to that effect.

Mr. English: The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to point out that I would not say something to the House that was not said to me—and, as he realises, it was said to me. If he wishes to prove or disprove the number of occasions over the last 20 years on which Ministers of the Crown have consulted trade unions in the House of Commons, if he thinks that what I have been told by the trade unions is untrue, all he has to do is to ask his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for permission to reveal the records of such discussions as there may have been. That cannot be done without the consent of the Opposition for the period when they were in Government. If he is prepared so to consent, well and good. If he is not prepared to do so, I think that we must legitimately draw the conclusion that what the trade unions have said to me may well be right.

Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman also spoke of Departments in the House and of the senior people in this House under whom the staff work. I do not know what evidence there might exist in that respect. However, to proceed on the basis of an assertion—and of course he is reporting faithfully what was said to him—and to accept it without question might not be an accurate reflection of what had happened. That was the only point I was making.

Mr. English: We all suffer from the possibility that our informants may be telling us something that is not true. The point I was making was that Ministers of the Crown are constantly accompanied by private secretaries who make a note of conversations which take place with non-Ministers. Those conversations on this issue can be produced with the consent of the Leader of the Opposition and with the consent of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The conversations involving Officers of the House and their subordinates are probably not so regularly and frequently recorded, so that they could not be produced as evidence of whether what the trade unions had said to me was true. There is, however, a price of evidence available and the right hon. Gentleman has only to consent to its revelation to prove or disprove what the trade unions are saying.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Perhaps I may help my hon. Friend by telling him of an incident that occurred during discussions on the Bill when a trade union representative in the House was impeded in his access to me—I am the parliamentary adviser to the union that has the largest membership in the House—and when I attempted to make contact with that member of the staff, I had representations from our Deputy Chief Whip about why I was trying to do so. Certainly, the situation that my hon. Friend describes does exist.

Mr. English: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his assistance. Like all the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I am a sponsored Member. I am a representative of the General and Municipal Workers' Union, the members of which are, alas, on the verge of taking industrial action in the House.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Shame.

Mr. English: The hon. Member may say "Shame", but the reasons for the dispute which were given at Question Time by the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee were rational and sensible. Ultimately, all these reasons boil down to consultation.
I just fail to understand what the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire meant when he talked about our having almost perfect industrial relations in the House. He said that there was no trouble here and that the amendment was unnecessary. But we are almost in the middle of a strike. I understand that industrial action will take place and that it will not cease until 9.30 p.m.

Mr. Pym: That is not relevant to the Bill.

Mr. English: But it is relevant to whether our industrial relations are perfect.

Mr. Cyril Smith: As a member of the Catering Committee, may I advise the hon. Gentleman that negotiations have been taking place between the union and the Committee for the last seven days and that this has been able to happen without an Act giving the union access.

Mr. English: The Conservative Member who is Chairman of the Catering Com-

mittee made clear that the negotiations were continuing and that he had some sympathy with the problem at issue. I begin to suspect that perhaps the dark hand of the Treasury is operating in the background of the Committee, and to judge from the nods that I am getting from the other side of the House, this is clearly true. I should be out of order to go into detail on the cause of today's industrial action. The point at issue is whether our industrial relations are so good that there is no need for the Government amendment. They cannot be perfect if the present situation has arisen, whatever its cause.
I have been told something that, conceivably, differs from what the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire has been told —though it is easily susceptible to proof with a measure of consent on his part. I am told that over the last 20 years, within the memory of members of the staff who are still here, there has been a lack of consultation with trade unionists and, it follows that there must have been an even greater lack of consultation with individual, junior members of the staff who are not in trade unions, because they do not have the same degree of power and authority as similar members of the staff banded together may have.
I started by thinking that the amendment was not necessary. I had put down an amendment about workers' representatives on the Commission. The trade unions said that they would be glad of even a small amendment saying that they should be consulted. I tabled such an amendment and the Minister gave me certain assurances. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, who is an honourable man, should say that the Minister and the Leader of the House should not have carried out the assurance given in Committee.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire talked about this being an agreed Bill. I think that he meant a Bill agreed by people such as the members of the Shadow Commission and the two Front Benches. No Bill is agreed until the House has agreed to it, and the House will have to agree to the amendment and the Bill.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for tabling an amendment which carries out the assurance given by his junior in Committee


and which will enable members of the staff, if they have real difficulties, to consult their ultimate employer. That is all it does. The surprising thing about the amendment is that we have on this side of the House the whole paraphernalia of a three-line Whip and the resources of one of the major parties of the State being rolled out because of the persistent opposition of the other major party in the State. Why is this so? It is because the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire is opposing mere consultation—not workers' power or workers' control. He is saying that there shall be no provision in the Bill requiring consultation.
Clearly, there should be such a provision. If it were not necessary, there would be no opposition to it. There is opposition because of the old, deep-seated, deep-rooted principle of the Tory Party. Whatever the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) may say, the truth and the reality is that Opposition spokesmen still have their old deep-rooted fear and frustration whenever presented with the thought that they should talk or listen to trade unionists.

Mr. Cyril Smith: My intervention will be brief, but I must say that the closing words of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) have made me even more suspicious of the amendment. There must be a reason for this sort of innocuous amendment having a three-line Whip on it. There must be a reason for the Government being so desperately anxious to carry through this simple, innocuous amendment which we are told does not really mean very much. We are told that it means only that a few trade union leaders can have the right of access to people serving on the Commission.
I must be blunt. It is time to put our cards on the table. Some of us suspect that this is an enabling amendment towards a closed shop for the staff of the House. When we hear about three-line Whips being put on, we begin to understand that the amendment has much greater significance than every speaker so far has suggested.
It has been said that the amendment represents normal procedure and hon. Members have asked why anyone should get upset about it. My party will not be pushed along any road that leads to a closed shop in the House. We shall require assurances from the Leader of

the House that the amendment is not the thin end of the wedge. There are aspects of the amendment, such as the reference to recognised trade unions and so on, that lead us to believe that it might be the thin end of the wedge, and that worries us considerably.

Mr. English: The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), like the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), said that there are certain aspects of the wording of the amendment, such as "recognised trade unions", that he did not like. If that is so, why did not the hon. Member for Rochdale, his colleagues or the right hon. Gentleman table an amendment to the amendment? It may be that many Labour Members share their dislike of certain aspects of the wording of the amendment, but we want to see the principle of consultation enshrined in the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman wanted an amendment to the amendment, why did he not table one?

Mr. Smith: We have not tabled an amendment because we doubt whether this amendment is necessary. We take the view that there are already adequate avenues for consultation within the House. Although I do not subscribe to the view, the House is supposed to be the most mature democracy in the world. If we cannot have proper trade union consultation and staff consultation without having to write that into the Bill, without having to have it pushed through as a point of law, there is something wrong with a place that claims to be such a mature democracy.
We believe that there must be adequate opportunity for consultation between trade unions, between staff who are not trade unionists, and between officers and members of the Commission. However, we question the need to do that by legislation. We view with some suspicion the reason for legislation and we doubt the need for it. Unless the Leader of the House is convincing in saying that the amendment is not the thin end of the wedge, I suspect that we shall vote against it.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I hope that I can give the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) and his Liberal colleagues the assurances that they seek. I am the parliamentary adviser to the CPSA. That is well known in the House. I can say


without fear of contradiction that the issue of the closed shop has never once arisen in any of the discussions that we have had on the amendment, or in any discussions that we have had on the Bill. From my knowledge of trade union members and trade union representatives in the House, I am sure that that has not in any way played a part in their thinking in seeking the amendment.
The hon. Member for Rochdale referred to the Whips. I, too, regret that there has been whipping. That applies not only to the Government but to the Opposition. The Opposition as well as the Government are seeking to get their Members to the House to vote. I regret that. I wish that it had been possible to arrive at an agreement between both sides of the House on a form of words that would have commended itself to the Conservative Opposition, the Liberals, the other minority parties and the Government.
When we began considering a form of words for the amendment we went to the statutes that contain sections referring to consultations and negotiations with trade unions. If in the initial stages we had tabled an amendment without having full consultation, it would have been very much along the lines of that which apparently was proposed.
I regret that there has not been agreement. In Committee the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), said:
I believe I speak for all my hon. Friends in saying that the spirit of Amendment No. 24
—that was the amendment seeking consultation and negotiation—
could not be objected to.
The hon. Gentleman added:
The Commission, through its agents… would not wish not to recognise those who represent substantial bodies of opinion. I cannot believe that the Commission would want to be immune to the views of people who serve us here."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 27th April 1978, c. 33.]
5.45 p.m.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has made it clear that the Opposition believe that there should be access to the Commisison. If they believe in the principle of access to the Commission, I do not understand why

they are so worried about the amendment being incorporated in the Bill. If they believe in the principle of access, which they apparently do, what is wrong with enshrining that principle in a small clause so that it stands for all time? It seems that the opposition goes not to the principle of access, despite the anxieties that have been mentioned, but to the writing of that principle into legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was anxious because a precedent was being set. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) has said that a precedent does already exist in the Employment Protection Act 1975. My hon. Friend referred to various measures that have passed through the House such as the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1975, the British Airways Board Act 1977 and the Post Office Act 1977 all of which in statute put a responsibility on the various boards to have negotiations and consultations on terms and conditions of employment and other matters. They spell out in some detail the access and the activities that the boards shall negotiate with trade unions and representative bodies.
It is not true to say that a precedent does not exist for an amendment of this sort. As there are precedents, and as the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the principle, I am at a loss to understand why the Conservative Opposition should be seeking to defeat the amendment.

Mr. English: That is because they do not like trade unions.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I turn to the reasons that led the staff to think it necessary to have the amendment incorporated in the Bill. For the most authoritative views we must turn to the report of the Committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) entitled House of Commons (Administration). Paragraph 5.27, which is about staff relations in the House, sets out in chapter and verse the history of relations between trade unions and staff in this place as they have existed over the years. Those relations have been in a pretty sorry state. The report states:
We have noted evidence of feeling amongst staff representatives that on some occasions the Staff Board


—that is the body that has been responsible for these matters—
has lacked sufficient authority to deal with representations made by staff representatives without reference back to Heads of Department. In consequence, they have, in effect, to make their representations to individual Heads of Department without there being a single focal point on the official side to whom, as in the normal structure of a Government Department, they could make their case. This has, in their view
—that is, the trade unions' view—
tended to weaken the development of full Whitley consultative procedures in the House and the adoption of standard conditions of service. In this regard we understand that meetings of the full Whitley Committee have been infrequent.
That is testimony to the lack of adequate procedures that have existed in the past. The trade union consultative committee of the various staff associations in the House feels that the procedures have been totally inadequate. It considers that the position has been so bad that the experience of the past few years and the history of the House should not be repeated. That is why it takes a strong view. That is why it wants to see the amendment incorporated in the Bill.
As the paragraph in the Bottomley Report indicates, one of the reasons for there being difficulty over consultation is the lack of a unified structure. One of the difficulties that we are now experiencing is that even under the new structure, which will be unified, there is not to be a chief executive officer, a head of the whole administration of this place. That has been one of the difficulties that I have found with so many of these matters. The team management that we are to have is a strange thing with which to get to grips, because there is no chief executive officer, managing director, or anyone else who will be responsible for all these matters. Different people will be responsible for different things, and the Commission corporately in the final analysis will be responsible for them all. That is why some of the difficulties have arisen on the amendment.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said that he feared that the staff would abuse this provision. The Conservative Opposition and Liberal Members should be aware that the staff associations and trade unions are clear in their minds about what they want. They are not asking for day-to-day negotiations

with the Commission on all kinds of piffling or, indeed, serious matters. They have made it clear that they intend to exercise the right of access to the Commission sparingly and with discrimination. They understand and fully accept that the normal channel shall be the Board of Management, which is referred to in the Bottomley Report and which is to be established when the Bill comes into force. They appreciate that the Commission should be used only as a last resort for pleas on serious matters on which agreement has not been possible at the lower level with the Board of Management or, indeed, with the establishments officer. The trade unions accept that this right must be used with discrimination and that only as a final court of appeal should the Commission be used by the staff side.

Mr. Pym: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. I do not think that anything that I said could possibly be taken to mean that I was suggesting that the trade unions would in any way abuse what is intended behind the amendment. The hon. Gentleman said that the trade unions would wish to use the Commission only as an ultimate resort. I have no doubt that is right. But that would be the position without the amendment. How would the Commission resist seeing them? Apart from anything else, I am sure that it would wish to see them. They have the assurance that they may see the Commission even without the amendment. As I indicated, this provision breaks new ground in a variety of ways. It is not necessary to have the amendment to manage relations with the unions in this place in the way described by the hon. Member.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I am sorry if I misinterpreted or misrepresented what the right hon. Gentleman said. I wanted to make clear to the House that there was no desire on the part of the unions to abuse the procedures proposed in the amendment. The trade union side fully understands that the Commission should be a final court of appeal on serious matters just as it will be for the Board of Management and for individual heads of Departments when difficulties have to be resolved. That is clearly understood and I want the House to be aware of that position.
I think that I have already covered the second point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale. The fact is that, if there had been a history of sweetness and light and of constant negotiations and helpful discussions between the staff side and the management of this place, this matter would not have arisen. It may have been better if it had not arisen. It may have been better if we had had a history of sweetness and light and good discussions going on over the years. But the simple fact is that that has not been the position. The staff have felt frustrated with the system. Here is a good opportunity to reform the system with proper negotiations. I think that it will be of assistance to all Members to have this provision.
I hope that what I have said will at least convince Liberal Members, if not the Conservative Opposition who have sent out their Whips, that there is no underhand attempt here to do anything more than the amendment lays down. The reason for it is basically the history of negotiations in this place. Therefore, I hope that at least Liberal Members will support the amendment, even if the Conservative Opposition do not.

Dr. Glyn: I am glad that the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wriggles-worth) clearly said that the unions intend to use this provision only as an ultimate sanction.
We are really discussing the interests of the staff. I think that we all acknowledge their loyalty and hard work. I should have thought that this matter, above all, was a House of Commons, not a party, matter. I very much regret that we could not obtain agreement on this clause and that it should have caused dislocation between the two sides.
The important point is that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said, everyone ultimately should have access right through as far as the Commission to redress what is felt to be a grievance. I do not consider that the amendment is necessary. I agree with my right hon. Friend that access is available without it being written into the Bill.
I should like to raise two matters with the Leader of the House. There will presumably be two methods of approach.

Having listened to what has been said, matters will obviously go to the Board and ultimately to the Commission. Therefore, there will presumably be two forms of approach. Those who are not members of unions will represent themselves and union members will no doubt be represented by their unions.
I cannot see why the amendment is necessary. I hope that, in reply to the debate, the Leader of the House will make clear that there is no intention of this matter leading to a closed shop. I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), but I agree with him that the amendment is not necessary because the provisions in the Bill already allow access. Therefore, it seems a great tragedy to make this a party issue.

Mr. Foot: I believe that, in replying to the questions posed by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), I shall cover most of the matters which have been mentioned by other hon. Members. However, I shall refer to them as I proceed. I hope not to omit any major question.
It was the Government's intention and hope that the Bill should go through the House with general support—I do not say without any amendment, because obviously hon. Members, who are all authorities on this subject, have important questions to raise.
I am sorry that a difference should have arisen on this subject. I do not make any allegation against the right hon. Gentleman about his attitude towards trade unions generally. I believe that he has raised this matter perfectly legitimately, and he is entitled to call upon me to answer the points that he made.
The origin of the amendment was the debate which took place in Committee upstairs. I believe that it was a legitimate deduction for me to make from that debate that it would be desirable to incorporate the general understanding in Committee in an amendment. There was no question, and there never has been from the beginning to the end of this discussion, of seeking to establish a closed shop in any form. That has not been put to me by any representative of any trade union in any of the discussions which I have had upon the matter. That


is certainly not the Government's intention and I am sure that it would not be the intention of the Commission. After all, the Commission would have a say in the matter. Without its agreement, there could not be any such possibility. I say to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) that that was not the origin of this matter. I do not believe that there are any grounds whatsoever for suspicion. We have reached this situation through a perfectly natural procedure, and I should like afresh to outline how we have arrived at this point.
6.0 p.m.
During discussions in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and others raised the question of trade union access to the Commission. They were entitled to raise that matter. They raised the matter for reasons to which I shall come later and which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wriggles-worth). They said that they wished it to be made clear that there was access and that it was provided in the Bill. The Government gave an undertaking in Committee that they would look at the matter and see whether the position could be strengthened and improved by an amendment.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire that in one sense this amendment is unnecessary. I agree that it would be possible under the original Bill for access to take place. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) rightly said that the breakthrough came under the Employment Protection Act and the new clause to that Bill which he and others helped to devise and which the Government happily accepted. That was the real change that took place. We are building upon that, although the access could and would take place even without the amendment.
I am not saying that that is a reason for not having the amendment. I say that even without the amendment there would be direct access to the Commission in the cases in which the Commission judged that access was desirable from the industrial relations point of view.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire asks, since that undertaking has been given in the name of the Government,

why there should be any further trouble about it. I shall give the House a reason in a moment. The right hon. Member also asked whether there was a statutory provision exactly of this kind in any other legislation. He is correct; there is no statutory provision exactly of this kind. There are some similar forms of statutory provision under nationalisation measures. The Liberal Party looked for an amendment of that character. Liberal Members tabled an amendment but it did not include the essential provisions which provide for there being other machinery, such as Whitley machinery, I understand the Liberal Party's motive, but its approach was not necessarily the best.
There is no body like this Commission. It is a body which deals with a unique situation and, therefore, since there has been no certainty about industrial relations in the previous arrangements, it is not absurd or outrageous for us to incorporate in such a new piece of machinery a clear undertaking that there should be the right of direct access for recognised trade unions. That is a reasonable approach.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire also said that there were dangerous implications in what we propose. I do not think that there are any such dangerous implications. I said earlier that, of course, the Commission would have the right to decide whom else it may take into account and whose representations it may take into account, just as it will have the power to decide how industrial relations should be conducted generally. There is nothing sinister in that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) made a point which was underlined afresh by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby. Over the years industrial relations in this place have not been wholly satisfactory. Some of the things that I hear about industrial relations here shock me. In many spheres we have not lived up to the claims that we make on the subject. Because of that there is a background of suspicion. It is not a suspicion that the House will not carry out undertakings that are given in debates. But there is a background of suspicion about industrial relations here. When we are setting up


an organisation of this character we should do everything in our power to remove that suspicion.
The debate has been initiated and the discussions have taken place. They were legitimate and above-board discussions between the Government and the unions following representations in Committee. To throw this amendment into the wastepaper basket now would not help industrial relations. It is not a question of a gulf of principle between the two sides. I want to see the Commission set up on the best possible basis. I should prefer the House to pass the amendment without a vote. It is a question not of principle but of judgment. It is a question of how we are to establish good industrial relations in the House of Commons. If we cannot do it here we had better not lecture people in other places. I may be wrong—I am on rare occasions—but in my opinion, having had all these discussions, it would be wrong for the House to say "No. We have an amendment which the Opposition say is all right but unnecessary and we are going to throw it out." To do that would not be conducive to good industrial relations. It could sour them. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire is as eager as I am to prevent the souring of industrial relations.
I hope that the House as a whole can accept the amendment. There is mysterious talk about three-line Whips and it is said that these extraordinary instruments are being mobilised to deal with the issue. I should prefer no mention to be made of such a matter. I never mention three-line Whips. It is not my business: it is the job of the Patronage Secretary—I hope that he has been doing his job properly.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire knows what happened at the end of last week. To have a vote now and vote the amendment down on a party vote after these discussions and have it said that an innocuous amendment was defeated which insisted that recognised trade unions have direct access to the Commission would not be the best way to proceed.
I urge the right hon. Member to think afresh. In my judgment, to throw out this

amendment would injure our industrial relations. That is my judgment. I believe that it is the judgment of the House and of those who have paid special attention to these matters. I do not say that such people are on this side of the House exclusively. But hon. Members must take account of the fact that spokesmen have been in touch with the unions. We must take all those factors into account.
I am strongly in favour of the Bill. The House owes a debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and all those who have worked to bring forward this change in our affairs. One of the reasons why I am so strongly in favour of the Bill is that it can put industrial relations in the House on a much better footing than they have been. It is high time that we moved in that direction. On that basis I much prefer a unanimous vote than a Division. I hope that we shall reach a conclusion soon.

Mr. Pym: With the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, I wish briefly to reply. Although the Leader of the House was unable to accept the third criticism that I made in my opening remarks about the recognition of particular trade unions and the representations they make, he conceded that in one sense the amendment was unnecessary. That was the first point I made. He also conceded that the proposal was without any equivalent precedent, although, to be fair, he went on to say that as the Bill was breaking new ground, in a sense perhaps a precedent was not a precedent. At any rate, he admitted that there was nothing like it in previous statutes. So I think I might be said to have scored two out of three points there.
The Opposition have certainly supported the Bill throughout, and the only argument has arisen over this amendment, to which no reference was made before the Committee stage. In a sense the Leader of the House exaggerates what happened as a result of that. He and I share one view. The last thing either of us wants is to sour the atmosphere. I certainly do not want a Division on this Bill, and certainly not one on partisan lines.
I would have thought, however, that in view of all that has been said in this


debate, instead of the right hon. Gentleman urging me not to press the matter to a Division, it would be appropriate for him to agree to withdraw the amendment. Let us enact the Bill without it. Let us embark upon this new course. It is a completely new system for administering the House. Let the Commission come into existence and get on with its work. Let representations be made from any member of the staff ultimately, if that proves necessary, to the Commission in the way that hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed would happen without the amendment. I believe that we should then find that the Bill would lead to that improved degree of industrial relations for which we are all striving. We are both agreed across the Floor of the House on this matter.

My answer, therefore, to the Lord President's plea to me is that he should withdraw the amendment. Let us set up the Commission, let us try it, let us see the representations made by trade union representatives and by those who are not members of trade unions, if necessary, ultimately, to the Commission. If after a year or two's experience that does not work, we could return to the matter. I believe that we shall find the new arrangement a great improvement. My reply to the Leader of the House is that he should withdraw the amendment and let us embark upon the Bill without it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes, 211.

Division No. 239]
AYES
[6.13 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dempsey, James
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Allaun, Frank
Dewar, Donald
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Anderson, Donald
Doig, Peter
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dormand, J. D.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Armstrong, Ernest
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kelley, Richard


Ashley, Jack
Duffy, A. E. P.
Kerr, Russell


Ashton, Joe
Dunnett, Jack
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Eadie, Alex
Kinnock, Neil


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Edge, Geoff
Lamborn, Harry


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lamond, James


Bain, Mrs Margaret
English, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Bates, Alf
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Loyden, Eddie


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, John (Newton)
Luard, Evan


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Faulds, Andrew
McCartney, Hugh


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
MacCormick, Iain


Boardman, H.
Flannery, Martin
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McElhone, Frank


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Bradley, Tom
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mackintosh, John P.


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
George, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Buchan, Norman
Ginsburg, David
McNamara, Kevin


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Golding, John
Madden, Max


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Gourlay, Harry
Magee, Bryan


Campbell, Ian
Graham, Ted
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Canavan, Dennis
Grocott, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth


Cant, R. B.
Hardy, Peter
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Carmichael, Neil
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cartwright, John
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Meacher, Michael


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Clemitson, Ivor
Hooley, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Horam, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cohen, Stanley
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Huckfield, Les
Molloy, William


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Crawford, Douglas
Hunter, Adam
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Cronin, John
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Newens, Stanley


Cryer, Bob
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Noble, Mike


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jackson, Colln (Brighouse)
Oakes, Gordon


Davidson, Arthur
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ogden, Eric


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Janner, Greville
O'Halloran, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davies, Ifor (Gowar)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Padley, Walter


Deakins, Eric
John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur


Dean, Joseph (Leads West)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Parry, Robert




Pavitt, Laurie
Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Perry, Ernest
Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)
Ward, Michael


Phipps, Dr Colin
Snape, Peter
Watkins, David


Price, William (Rugby)
Spearing Nigel
Watkinson, John


Radice, Giles
Spriggs, Leslie
Watt, Hamish


Richardson, Miss Jo
Stallard, A. W.
Weetch, Ken


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Weitzman, David


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Stoddart, David
Wellbeloved, James


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Stott, Roger
Welsh, Andrew


Robinson, Geoffrey
Strang, Gavin
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Roderick, Caerwyn
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
White, James (Pollok)


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Swain, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wigley, Dafydd


Rooker, J. W.
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rose, Paul B.
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Thompson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Rowlands, Ted
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Ryman, John
Tierney, Sydney
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Sedgemore, Brian
Tilley, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Selby, Harry
Tomlinson, John
Woodall, Alec


Sever, John
Tomney, Frank
Woof, Robert


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Torney, Tom
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tuck, Raphael



Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Urwin, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. James Tinn.


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, Robert


Alison, Michael
Faser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McCusker, H.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Freud, Clement
Macfarlane, Neil


Arnold, Tom
Fry, Peter
MacGregor, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Awdry, Daniel
Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Baker, Kenneth
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Madel, David


Banks, Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Beith, A. J.
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Marten, Neil


Bell, Ronald
Goodhart, Philip
Mates, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Goodhew, Victor
Mather, Carol


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gorst, John
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mawby, Ray


Biffen, John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Blaker, Peter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mayhew, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Grieve, Percy
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Griffiths, Eldon
Mills, Peter


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Miscampbell, Norman


Brittan, Leon
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Molyneaux, James


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hannam, John
Monro, Hector


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Buck, Antony
Heseltine, Michael
Neave, Airey


Bulmer, Esmond
Higgins, Terence L.
Nelson, Anthony


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hodgson, Robin
Neubert, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Holland, Philip
Newton, Tony


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hooson, Emlyn
Onslow, Cranley


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Clegg, Walter
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pardoe, John


Cope, John
Hurd, Douglas
Parkinson, Cecil


Cormack, Patrick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pattie, Geoffrey


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Percival, Ian


Critchley, Julian
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Crowder, F. P.
Jopling, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Dunlop, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Raison, Timothy


Durant, Tony
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rathbone, Tim


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Knox, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lamont, Norman
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Eyre, Reginald
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawrence, Ivan
Rhodes James, R.


Fell, Anthony
Lawson, Nigel
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridsdale, Julian


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Loveridge, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Luce, Richard
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'fd)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)







Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Rossl, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stanley, John
Wakeham, John


Royle, Sir Anthony
Steel, Rt Hon David
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wall, Patrick


Scott, Nicholas
Stokes, John
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Weatherill, Bernard


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Tapsell, Peter
Wells, John


Shepherd, Colin
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Silvester, Fred
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Whitney, Raymond


Sinclair, Sir George
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Younger, Hon George


Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)



Speed, Keith
Townsend, Cyril D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Trotter, Neville
Mr. Peter Morrison and


Sproat, Iain
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Sir George Young.


Steinton, Keith
Viggers, Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Hal Miller: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 6, line 13, at end insert—
'(2A) The Commission shall appoint as its Secretary a member of the staff whose appointment lies within its power under section 2(1) and (4) of this Act.'
It is with a sense of surprised gratification that I rise to ask the support of the House for this amendment. I only hope that it has not put you, Mr. Speaker, under any personal pressure.
The amendment is concerned with the appointment of the Secretary to the Commission, for which there is no direct provision in the Bill. That is the sole reason for the amendment, and I should like to make it plain at the outset that there is no question of any personalities being involved or any subterranean reason why the amendment is being put forward this evening.
In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Thomaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) spoke of the need for some sort of chief executive managing the affairs of the House. It was, indeed, suggested in Committee that the Secretary to the Commission might come, eventually, to play such a role. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) asked me, when I moved a similar amendment in Committee, whether I, indeed, foresaw such a possibility and whether I would therefore like to make the appointment an exclusive one—in other words, that the Secretary to the Commission should not hold another office at the same time.
I was about to say that it was a pleasure to sec the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) here, but he is no longer present. He was not present during the Committee discussion on this point.
The reasoning for the amendment is that in the Bottomley Report it is suggested that your Secretary, Mr. Speaker, should automatically be appointed the Secretary to the Commission. It was felt in Committee that that was not appropriate because of the need to develop the work of the Secretary to the Commission and because of the need to command as large as possible a measure of assent from all those staff working through the Secretary to the Commission.
I admit that the amendment is open to objection on the ground of defective construction, perhaps, in that the Commission would be able, first of all, to appoint somebody to the staff of the House of Commons and then subsequently to appoint that person as Secretary to the Commission. So it would be possible to get round some of the obstacles which the amendment was intended to erect.
It is a very simple point, however, that the Secretary to the Commission will be a major appointment. We feel that it should be mentioned in the Bill. There was a large measure of assent in Committee that some such measure was required and the further consultations which the Minister undertook at that stage to have with me did not result in any agreed form of words.
It is in that spirit, therefore, that I have put this amendment forward in an effort to clarify this most important position.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I can put briefly what I believe is the main point of this amendment, which I support. It is that if we were not very careful we might find that the whole spirit of the changes which are being brought about as a result of the Bill—the whole spirit of the Bottomley Report, which was to provide


unification of the staff and an opportunity for staff members to gain promotion in a way they have not been able to do in the past—could be spoiled at this most important level, of the person who is to be the Secretary of the Commission. That could happen because, as you know Mr. Speaker, your staff—particularly your Secretary—could be, and indeed might well be, appointed from outside the normal staff in the House. It can be an outside appointment.
If the Secretary of yours or of any future Speaker became Secretary of the Commission, that person would have avoided coming up through the whole ladder of promotion and of experience in the House, and would be in the potentially very important position of Secretary of the Commission. Many people at all levels of the staff of the House might resent somebody going in at that level, having bypassed the whole process of coming up through the ranks, or at least of having had broad experience at the senior level or in different Departments under the new structure in the House. It is to avoid that that this amendment has been tabled, and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it in that spirit.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I had thought more hon. Members would wish to take part in this brief discussion than have sought to do so so far. I should first like to say how much we regretted that we had to have a Division on the previous matter, to which I must not refer, but it is deeply regretted. There is a danger that it could cause difficulties, but the record of the Opposition on staff matters is as good as that of any part of the House and we shall proceed like that hereafter, the House having made a decision on that previous matter.
There is no doubt that the appointment of a Secretary to the Commission is one of major importance, and it is important that whoever holds the position should have the confidence of all who are involved. But it is felt on the Opposition Benches that such confidence can best be achieved by leaving the choice of Secretary to the Commission itself. The Commission is an important House of Commons body, perhaps the most important House of Commons body, looking after

the interests of both Members of the House and the staff who serve here. We believe that the Commission will be best qualified to choose who it shall have as its Secretary.
It must also be said, however, that powerful arguments have been advanced by hon. Members today, and by some who spoke in Committee, and one could not for a moment imagine that the future Commission would be deaf to whatever has been said in Committee, and here, in relation to the kind of person who should serve as its secretary. I do not believe it is necessary to enact the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend in the way that he introduced it. I rather got the impression that he merely wanted to restate the position that he held upstairs, and still holds, but that he was not seeking to force this matter to a Division.
I hope that the House, having had its say, will be satisfied that the Commission will have good sense in this matter. It has not been trusted, perhaps, in all matters, for the Bill has been very tightly drawn, but perhaps in this matter the Commission's good sense can be relied on. The hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) spoke of the frustration of those who come up through the ranks and see someone brought in from outside to this key post. I put it to him that the whole object of the Bill, which we hope will soon be an Act, is to provide the greatest freedom of movement among this who serve us. I suppose there could be a situation in which somebody comes up through the ranks who, having gone to one of the Departments of the House, is chosen by Mr. Speaker to be his Secretary, I imagine with the acclaim of all concerned.
It might then be the wish of the Commission and the House that this person, having served with such distinction, skill, tact and everything else required of a Speaker's Secretary in that position, should, following that service, assume the extremely important position of Secretary to the Commission. That could happen. I hope that hon. Members will bear it in mind and will not wish to push the amendment to a vote and vote it into the statute, because that situation, which could exist—for we are legislating for the next century—could specifically preclude an immensely worthwhile and experienced


person serving in that position. I hope that I have said enough to bring both sides and all quarters of the House together. Perhaps, just for once, the Commission, which does not yet exist except in shadowy form, could be trusted to get things right.

Mr. William Price: I am delighted that harmony is restored between the hon. Gentleman and myself on behalf of the Lord President. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bottomley Committee recommended, in para 416, that the Secretary to the new Commission should be the Speaker's Secretary. The Committee said:
The Secretary to the Commission should be independent of any of the Departments especially in view of possible appeals to the Commission by Heads of Departments. We accordingly recommend that this post be filled by the Speaker's secretary.
Under Clause 2(4) the secretaryship to Mr. Speaker, along with other posts, is excluded from being a Commission appointment under Clause 2(1). The effect of the amendment—we have been through this in Committee as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) will remember—would thus be to disbar Mr. Speaker's Secretary and others, including the Clerk of the House, any Clerk Assistant, the Sergeant at Arms and any other member of the Speaker's personal staff, from appointment to this post. I believe that the hon. Gentleman recognises that that is the position.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the appointment of the Secretary should be for the Commission itself to decide. That is why the Bill is silent on the question of the appointment and on the method of selection, leaving the Commission entirely free to choose whom it wants. The Commission may well follow the recommendation of the Bottomley Committee and appoint Mr. Speaker's Secretary to the post or it may decide to do otherwise, but I believe that it

would be wrong to limit the Commission's freedom of choice by ruling out in advance the Bottomley Committee's recommendation or any other of the House staff referred to in Clause 2(4). I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this. We have not written into the Bill anything on the appointment of anyone, and I do not believe we should write in any exclusion, either.
I want to add to what was said by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke). I, too, am sure that the Commission will take notice of all that has been said, both here and upstairs, and of any representations which may be made before any appointment is finalised.

Mr. Hal Miller: I am grateful to hon. Members who have taken part in this debate and for the spirit in which they have approached the amendment. I should like to repeat my assurance to you, Sir, it was not intended to put you under any embarrassment. This is an important post, and I thought it necessary to state a view contrary to that which we felt had been rather facilely adopted—if I may say so without offence—in the report of the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley).
My purpose in moving the amendment was to make certain that there was a statement of an alternative position. I hope and believe that the Commission will consider the remarks made here and in Committee when it makes the appointment, and that it does not merely have the Bottomley Report in front of it.
Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. May I seek your advice about New Clause No. 3, which has not been selected? I understand that it is out of order. It seeks to provide parliamentary pensions at the age of 80 for former Members and widows who are at present entitled to no pension.
The Minister of State said clearly on Second Reading that the intention of the Bill was to carry out the recommendations of the Boyle Report. In paragraph 34 of that report a specific reference was made to the possibility of pensions for former Members at the age of 80. No recommendation was made, but it was specifically said that Parliament might wish to consider, and come to a decision on, this matter.
Do I understand that the Government have drawn the Bill so tightly that Parliament is being prevented from accepting the invitation issued by Boyle and prevented from coming to a specific decision on the matter? If that is so, it is disgraceful that when we are specifically invited by a Committee to consider a matter the Government should deny us the opportunity.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The Bill is so drafted that it deals only with contributory pensions, and therefore the hon. Gentleman's new clause is out of order.

Mr. Dean: Can you, then, assist the Committee, Mr. Godman Irvine? How, in the light of this, can we, within order, discuss a recommendation that the Boyle Committee suggested we should discuss?

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman may find some other method of discussing the matter, but he cannot do so under the Bill.

Mr. Hal Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. We are in a very difficult position. In the Bill there is

proposed a retrospective extension on a non-contributory basis for people who are already Members. They are entitled to accumulate extra credits for pension purposes for a non-contributory period, but we are excluding those of their colleagues who have subsequently left the House, although as far as one can see they were on the same basis. Why should one category be awarded a pension that is denied to others who were in the same boat at the same time?

The Second Deputy Chairman: It is simply a question whether the pension is contributory.

Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I, too, have a little beef about the questions that have been ruled in order and out of order by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
I put down only one amendment and one new clause. The amendment had the object of enabling us to discuss the difference between our pension scheme, which at present has a 5 per cent. contribution rate, raised by the Bill to 6 per cent., and the Civil Service scheme, which is non-contributory, except in respect of the pensions of civil servants' widows, for whom I think civil servants contribute 1½ per cent. or 1¾ per cent. That amendment has been ruled out of order, with the result that we cannot bring Members of Parliament on to a basis of equality with the civil servants who serve them.
My new clause, which was also ruled out of order, concerns a question on which no Member was consulted. The Trustees, on the Treasury's advice, decided to opt us out of the State pension scheme. I was told earlier by Officers of the House that the Bill would provide an opportunity for Members to discuss that issue. That will not happen if my new clause is ruled out of order, yet it is a matter about which no Member has been consulted, apart from the Trustees. At some time, somewhere, we should have the opportunity of deciding for ourselves whether we shall be opted out of or into the State scheme.

The Second Deputy Chairman: That may be, but it is not within the scope of the Bill.

Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

ILL-HEALTH PENSIONS BASED ON SERVICE AS A MEMBER

The Second Deputy Chairman: I call the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) to move Amendment No. 2.

Mr. Francis Pym: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 26, leave out
'on the day of the poll'
and insert:
'during the week in which the poll takes place'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this amendment we may take Amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 26, leave out
'on the day of the poll in that election'.

Mr. Pym: I have moved the amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), who is not present, because it concerns a matter that I briefly raised on Second Reading. I then told the House that it seemed to me that the words
on the day of the poll
were unduly restrictive.
It is in a sense a probing amendment, but there is a genuine point behind it. If the provision were allowed to be couched in wider terms, it might be both fairer and more reasonable.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) for moving the amendment, because I appreciate the concern that has given rise to both amendments. The right hon. Gentleman asked a question about the matter on Second Reading.
Subsection (8)(b), which contains the words in question, affects a very small group of participants in the scheme. In fact, it covers the case only of an officeholder who is not a Member of this House —normally an office-holder in the House of Lords—who loses his office as a result of a General Election. The intention of the paragraph is to permit such a person to benefit from the ill-health retirement provision if he can satisfy the Trustees that because of his ill-health he would have been unable to perform the duties

of a Member of this House at the time of the election. The paragraph thus safeguards the position of an office-holder in poor health whose intention to apply is overtaken by a snap election, or who suffers a sudden decline in health at the time of a Dissolution.
The reason why "the day of the poll" is stated as the time at which the office holder must be ill has, however, no hidden significance. It is simply that the Trustees must have some definite time at which to judge the office holder's state of health. This is, I hope, made clearer by the note on the clause which has been made available to hon. Members.
I can certainly assure the House that there is no question of the Trustees being obliged to take a blinkered look at office holders' health. The test to be applied, which is the only test it is reasonable to ask the Trustees to apply, is whether, at the time of the election, the individual is generally in a fit state to perform the duties of a Member.
The legislation is not intended to mean that a bout of influenza on the day of the poll would qualify an office holder for ill-health retirement. Equally, a temporary remission on the day of the poll from a chronic condition which would normally render the office holder incapable of performing adequately the duties of a Member would not exclude him. I am sure that we can safely leave it to the Trustees to interpret their responsibilities as I have described.
With that assurance, particularly drawing attention to the fact that the provision does not apply to hon. Members but to certain office holders, I hope that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire will be willing to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Pym: The fact that the amendment refers to someone who is not a member of this House is not, I believe, relevant. However, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

WIDOWS', DEPENDENT WIDOWERS' AND CHILDREN'S PENSIONS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: This is the main beneficiary clause in the Bill. I have tabled three amendments which have not been selected. I do not for a moment question the choice of the Chair. The amendments may well have been defective in that they sought to add words at the end of the clause when, perhaps, they should have been added earlier.
This clause will give three months' salary to the dependants of Members who die after the passing of this measure. It will also make some improvement to children's pensions. On Second Reading I argued that this clause, as the main benefit clause, should be back-dated by a year. I said that because I believe that the Government obliged to introduce this Bill a year ago, as the Minister of State almost implied in his opening remarks on Second Reading. I do not say that he agreed with my proposition but the implication was there when he said:
The Review Body's report was, of course, presented to Parliament in July 1976, but at that time pay policy virtually ruled out any improvements in occupational pension schemes and we were not able to take any immediate action.
I accept that. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
From 1st August 1977 this was no longer the case, and we were able to consider implementing the Review Body's recommendations." —[Official Report, 21st June 1978; Vol. 952, c. 615.)
It is my contention that the Government should have acted promptly and introduced this Bill because it did not go against phase 2 of the Government's incomes policy. The Government did not do so. The Bill took some time to prepare. As a result, I believe that they should have made this clause retrospective to cover the dependants of the eight Members who have died in the past year. Of those eight Members, six have dependants. If my suggestion expressed on Second Reading had been accepted by the Government the widows of the six Members who have died would have benefited from the clause.
It is particularly ironic, tragic and poignant that the widow of one Member who died over the weekend would have benefited if my recommendations had been accepted by the Government. What makes it even more ironic was that the last words that Mr. Joseph Harper spoke in the House were in the middle of my speech. I was saying:
We are the only group in society that can determine absolutely what we pay ourselves and what levels of pension we set.
He intervened and said:
We have made a very bad job of it"— [Official Report. 21st June 1978; Vol. 952, c. 650.]
I believe that we have made a very bad job of it.
The intention of my amendments was to give the small benefits in this clause to the dependants of those Members who have died over the past year. This would have included Joe Harper, who attended the Second Reading of the Bill. I very much regret that my amendments have not been selected. It may well be that by the time we reach Report I can find a form of words that will bring my amendments into order, in which case I would ask you, Mr. Godman Irvine, to consider accepting a starred amendment to implement what I have been saying.

Mr. John Smith: I do not believe that anyone—certainly not the Government—lacks sympathy for the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker). We are conscious of the poignancy in the fact that Joe Harper was the Whip sitting on the Bench beside Ministers when the Second Reading debate took place. The fact that this Bill was before the House for consideration naturally sprang to our minds when we heard of his unfortunate death. There are, regrettably, a number of other hon. Members who have died within the past year, most of them from the Labour side of the House.
We are in a genuine difficulty about incorporating retrospective elements in pension schemes. I ought to put the other side of the case and explain that to start introducing a retrospective element into pensions legislation of this type would raise a fundamental principle which would possibly have repercussive effects upon many other pension schemes. The hon. Gentleman may disagree with


that but it is worth drawing to the attention of the Committee that this has to be taken into consideration.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has raised any other comments about the substance of the clause, of which I am sure he approves. We shall come later to amendments which seek to improve its provisions. The Government have not acted in the way proposed by hon. Members because of the principle of retrospection.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: Before the Minister slips off that rather uncomfortable pole upon which he has perched in an attempt to excuse the Government's conduct in respect of this clause I would point out that the pension scheme that we are discussing for Members of Parliament is unique in more ways than one. As one who has in the recent past seen fit to condemn retroactive legislation in another area I do not believe that the Government can simply say that to back-date would breach a serious principle yet at the same time continue so to denude the scheme that it continues to be a very special scheme.
If the Government do not intend to bring forward an amendment which would implement the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker), would it be possible for them to consider, as a one-off measure, some sort of arrangement in respect of those Members who have died within the period that we are here considering? The Government can be criticised for being dilatory in bringing forward this measure. If that is conceded in any way by the Minister the Government have a responsibility to see whether there is not a case for bringing in a measure to take care of the case of those former Members to whom my hon. Friend has referred. Looking to the future they should try to see that such a situation does not recur. There is a duty upon the Government to do this, out of compassion and because they can be said to have a narrow responsibility.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) has in essence repeated the argument of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) with the added point that there are certain unique features about the

parliamentary scheme. That is true. Unfortunately, there are also similarities between the parliamentary scheme and other public sector pension schemes. I understand that it is the practice of those who are responsible for negotiating public sector schemes to look closely at what is decided for Members of Parliament. In the short time that I have been considering this matter I have realised that it is possible to draw parallels and non-parallels with all sorts of pension schemes.
The short answer is that we share the hon. Member's sense of frustration over the fact that we are unable to help the widows of our former colleagues but feel that if we departed from the principle of non-retrospection we would be getting into very deep waters indeed. With great regret I have to say that I cannot offer to bring forward an amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

SHORT-TERM PENSIONS FOR WIDOWS, DEPENDENT WIDOWERS AND CHILDREN

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 40, leave out from 'widower' to 'subsection' in line 43.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may also discuss the following:
Amendment No. 13, in page 8, line 44, after 'widower', insert
'when he reaches retirement age, or if, at the time of her death, he was incapable by reason of bodily or mental infirmity of earning his own living,'.
and the following new clause:

New Clause No. 8

WIDOWERS' PENSIONS

'For subsection (1) of section 14 of the Act of 1972 there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
Subject to the provisions of this section, the widower of a woman who has died on or after the passing of the Act of 1978 shall be entitled to receive a pension under this section when he reaches


retirement age or, if, at the time of her death, he was incapable by reason of bodily or mental infirmity of earning his own living and if at that time either—

(a) she was entitled to receive a pension under section 7 or section 9 of this Act, or under both those sections, or
(b) she was not so entitled, but had an aggregate period of reckonable service (whether as a Member or otherwise) of not less than four years and either had been a Member of the House of Commons on or after 1st January 1972 or had elected to be a participant under section 2 of this Act in respect of one or more periods of tenure of reckonable office."'.

7.0 p.m.

Mrs. Castle: The Committee will see that a considerable number of my hon. Friends are associated with this amendment.
We are all conscious of anomalies and injustices which appear to occur in any pension scheme such as the one to which reference has just been made. But the purpose of this group of amendments is to mitigate one of the most astonishing injustices of all, which we have tolerated for years in our pension scheme, by making a modest improvement in our provision for widowers.
As I have been round the House discussing this group of amendments with my hon. Friends, I have been surprised to discover how few hon. Members know what is the provision for widowers. That is a very natural state of affairs when we come to think of it, for most hon. Members, being men, have rested happy in the knowledge that provision was made for their own widows.
Pensions for widows are now an automatic part of practically every pension scheme. In our scheme, widows will get, as of right, half their husbands' pension entitlement, regardless of their age when the husbands die, regardless of whether the widows have means of their own, regardless of whether they have children, and regardless of whether they have been earning a livelihood of their own or were financially dependent on the former Members of Parliament.
This seems automatic justice to Members of this House, and it is these comprehensive provisions, as of right, for which we women Members of Parliament have been paying to give widows financial security. I do not regret it. I

think it is absolutely right. But what are the men Members of this House paying for our widowers? It is an amount so minute that it would be impossible to measure it.
What provision do we make for widowers under our pension scheme? The criteria are laid down in Section 14(1) of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972. If I were to hold an examination among hon. Members as to the provisions for widowers, I doubt whether 20 per cent. would get the answer right. Most of the 20 per cent. would be people whom I have approached and to whom I have pointed it out. The criteria for a widower to receive a pension are
if, at the time of her death, he was incapable by reason of age or bodily or mental infirmity of earning his own living and was wholly or mainly dependent on her".
The widower has to be incapacitated by age or infirmity at the time of her death. Later on it makes no difference how incapable of earning his own living he may be. In addition, he has to prove that his wife was supporting him. I should have thought that in this modern age of the Welfare State that second condition—
wholly or mainly dependent on her"—
would be almost unprovable when he had a pension of his own, as he almost certainly would have.
I doubt whether we have had a single case of a widower's pension being awarded under the criteria that we have laid down, yet women Members of Parliament will have their contributions increased under the scheme to provide, among other things, improved short-term benefits for widows, under Clause 7. Once again, widowers can get these improved benefits only if they meet these demeaning and almost impossible criteria. A woman Member will continue to be levied extra contributions to pay for benefits which are a solace merely to one sex in this House.
We are introducing these new proposals and perpetuating these out-of-date criteria for widowers at a time when we have made great steps forward in sex equality. Since the 1972 Act was passed, the thinking of this country on equality of the sexes has been revolutionised. The Equal Pay Act 1970 has come into full force. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 has gone


on the statute book. The Equal Opportunities Commission has been set up. As Secretary of State for Social Services, I carried through this House a new State pension scheme which for the first time gave women equal opportunities, equal obligations and equal rights, yet here we are adding to our own pension scheme and levying on Members a higher contribution to pay for it, and continuing to embody in that scheme a piece of in-quality against the male survivors of women Members of this House which is ludicrously out of date. It just will not do.
New Clause No. 8, therefore, seeks to amend the criteria for a widower's pension in the 1972 Act. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are consequential, in that they apply the new criteria to the short-term pensions proposed in Clause 7. I shall explain to the House the new criteria that we propose. Logically, of course, we ought to go for complete sex equality. We ought to go for a survivor's benefit. That is the only fair and logical treatment when the contributions and salaries and conditions of service of men and women in this House are identical. If salaries are identical, if contributions are identical, and if conditions of service are identical, benefits ought to be identical. For anything else to obtain is nothing short of actuarial robbery.
I am a realist and I know that we have to phase in sex equality, just as we have had to do it, to a certain extent, in the State pension scheme. What I am pleading, and what my hon. Friends who have signed the new clause and the amendments are pleading, is that today, in this Bill, at least we should make a start in rectifying what can be held without dispute to be the most gross injustice in our whole pension scheme. The start that we are proposing—because we want the Government to listen, because we want the House to take this seriously, and because we want to practise the art of the possible—is a very modest one indeed.
First, we suggest that the widower of a Member of this House should receive the same pension as does the widow—that is, half her spouse's pension entitlement—when he reaches retirement age and not before. For example, if an hon. Member such as my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs.

Hayman) were prematurely to die, which we all profoundly hope she will not, her husband would not immediately draw the equivalent of the widow's pension, as he would if the sex arrangement were the other way around. He would have to wait until he was 65.
Secondly, in order to provide for those cases where a husband may be incapacitated or incapable of earning his own living, we urge that he should receive the widower's pension on the death of his wife, whatever his age, and that he should not have to prove that he was wholly or mainly dependent on her.
We propose that these conditions will apply to the existing widower's pension and to the proposed new short-term one. Why did we fix on the retirement criterion? Because our modest proposals fall far short of logical equality. We chose the retirement criterion because we know that the time when the widower has retired is the time when he will most need financial help, but also because we know the argument that will be made against us. It is that our scheme must not get too far out of line with other schemes, and that we cannot just legislate for ourselves entirely new concepts which might seem interesting or convenient.
The retirement principle is the basis of the modest advance which the Government made on widower's pensions in the new State pension scheme. Under that scheme, a widower who has retired from employment will be entitled to have his pension recalculated on the same basis as his widow's retirement pension would have been if he had died first. Under the State scheme we make a provision that a widow aged 60, if she has worked and contributed, can add 25 per cent. of her own earnings above the base level to the pension which she draws on her husband's record, subject to the provision that her total pension may not exceed the maximum payable on one record under the scheme. But under that new State pension scheme we say that the widower will in future be able to do exactly the same and increase his own pension through his wife's record. That is a new breakthrough. Under the State scheme, it applies only to the widower who has retired.
In trying to find a fair analogy for us to make a starting point, it struck me


that we could legitimately take this first step towards a survivor benefit of equal rights under our own scheme.
Of course, the two schemes are by no means identical. There is no ceiling of reckonable earnings under our scheme as there is under the State scheme. But what matters is the principle, and the principle which we spelt out in the White Paper "Better Pensions" which I myself presented to the House, was:
An important new proposal is the recognition of the financial needs of widowers".
Therefore, under the State scheme, the widower can benefit from his late wife's earnings when he has retired. We are not putting forward on our own behalf an entirely new principle; we are using one embodied in the State scheme, which we seek to adapt to our own type of scheme and our own circumstances.
Nor, I would point out, under the State scheme does the widower, in order to benefit from his late wife's earnings, have to meet the humiliating criterion of dependency; he gets it as of right. If we do nothing else in this Bill, we ought to remove the out-of-date concept that in order to get anything a widower would have to prove that he had been wholly or mainly dependent on his wife. That is a condition which in a modern welfare State would be unprovable to all intents and purposes.
7.15 p.m.
Therefore, in the changes which we propose, we are not trying to get ourselves out of line with principles that are applied generally. Indeed, we shall still be leaving ourselves well out of line to our own detriment with the best private pension schemes. There is nothing to prevent occupational pension schemes from introducing a full and equal widower's benefit, and the best ones do. It is merely a question whether the members of those private schemes are willing to pay for this type of benefit, as I hope the House would be, just as I am prepared to pay an increased contribution for hon. Members' widow's benefits.
If they resist these amendments, which I hope they will not, no doubt the Government will put before us a case which has nothing to do with the merits of our arguments. In fact, they have already given away their case. In reply to a

Question on widower's benefits that I put to him recently, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office said that the changes would create a precedent for comparable public service pension schemes. He did not say that the idea was ridiculous, outrageous, unjust or extravagant; he said that it would create a precedent. I challenge that. Are those public service pension schemes completely comparable with ours? We know that they are not. We know that there are variants between their provisions and ours. Some of them, at any rate in certain parts, are non-contributory, whereas ours is contributory. Others make better provision than ours in certain details.
Indeed, in the report of the Review Body on Top Salaries, Lord Boyle went out of his way to say:
we do not regard the provisions of other public service pension schemes as an absolute standard for the Parliamentary scheme. Nevertheless, the improvements which we have recommended will bring the benefits of the Parliamentary scheme close to those provided in public service schemes generally.
Close, but not exactly equal, and in many cases not as good. At another point in the report, in paragraph 55, Lord Boyle insisted on this scheme. He said:
We should add that our references to the provisions of other public service pension schemes do not imply that these schemes should provide a rigid measure of the pension benefits that would apply to Members of Parliament: this would clearly not be appropriate in relation to particular features of the job. Nor do we imply that the provisions of pension schemes in the private sector in general are irrelevant.
If private sector schemes are not irrelevant, we can surely follow some of them in beginning to make better provision for widowers, just as we are doing in the State pension scheme. This would be a fitting step in a year when we are celebrating an earlier historic step towards sex equality.
We are not asking for anything extravagant, unfair to other people, or excessively generous to ourselves. On many issues this House has been the policy maker. It is time that the logic of the widower's benefit was faced universally. We cannot do it all at once. All sorts of things must be considered, but we can begin to stand up for the principle.
When hon. Members vote tonight to increase the contributions of women Members, I hope they will spare a


moment to think, if not with sympathy at least with shame, of the inequality of the benefits that they impose upon us. Having done so, I hope that they will support the amendment that we press tonight.

Mr. Paul Dean: I rise to support the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). It is not often that she and I agree on pension matters. I do not think that I can recall an occasion when we have agreed before, but the time has now arrived.
I shall be extremely brief because the right hon. Lady's arguments were wholly convincing. There is no need for me to repeat them. However, I wish to put to the Government two particular points that she made.
First, I do not believe that if this amendment were accepted we should be providing privileges for ourselves which are not generally acceptable outside. I have argued before, and no doubt I shall argue again, that we are in a special position in the House of Commons. We decide our own pay and our own pensions and therefore we must be very careful that we do not provide ourselves with the sort of things that are not accepted as normal outside.
The concept of a survivor's pension, which is written into the main State legislation, is becoming common practice in occupational pension schemes as well. Only this morning a pension scheme of which I am a trustee was considering whether the widower should be included on the same basis as the widow. I am sure that when we make a decision shortly we shall do just that. Therefore, if the Government accept this amendment, they will not be open to the criticism that we are providing privileges that are not generally provided outside.
Secondly, the Minister emphasised on Second Reading—quite rightly—that it is very unsatisfactory to formulate our detailed pension arrangements through main legislation. That is probably one reason why we are in such a mess. The Minister said that he looked forward to the time when our pension arrangements were in rules. This is more flexible and it would mean that they could be altered as easily as trustees can alter a pension scheme outside.
If we are to achieve this highly desirable objective we must have legislation which is as tidy as we can get it and which is not lagging behind in any respect before we translate the legislation into scheme rules. On these grounds I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. If they feel disposed not to do so, and the right hon. Lady divides the Committee, I shall vote with her.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I know from long experience that it is very often best to get one's words in before the Government spokesman has made the fatal commitment one way or the other.
We all agree that in any ordinary justice the widower should be treated exactly like the widow. However, the whole structure of our society in the past has been inimical to that idea. It was always assumed that the man earned the income and looked after the woman, and therefore on his death she was the one in need. In the great majority of cases that was true then, but it is far less true now.
Male members of the House must admit that there is a certain amount of male chauvinism in us all, but we do our best to control it. That male chauvinism leads us to think that there is something slightly disreputable in a widower claiming benefit. There is a feeling that it is all right for the widow to be looked after, because she is just the poor little woman, but for a man it is considered that it is not quite equal to his manhood.
About 30 years ago, when I was Under-Secretary of State for War, I had to try to persuade the House to agree to certain financial provisions for both men and women in the Army, which contained a reference to widowers. Some of the remarks made at that time suggested that it was beneath the dignity of a man even to be thought of as a widower at all. But that was a generation ago. We have got rid of that sort of thinking now and we accept the idea that we should move towards complete equality in treatment of widows and widowers.
As my right hon. Friend wisely pointed out, it would be no good trying to go the whole way at once. But the step that she has proposed tonight is very modest. Her provision has this advantage—it accepts the proposition that the widower,


unlike the widow, must, for the time being, have a pension conditional on certain things, and not absolute. When one makes a pension conditional one should draw the conditions as precisely as possible and not saddle the trustees with a great many awkward decisions on difficult matters of opinion.
My right hon. Friend's proposal removes from the trustees the tiresome and difficult business of asking whether a widower was wholly dependent on his wife in her lifetime. Also, on the question of age it replaces the necessity for the trustees to give an opinion whether the man was, by reason of age, incapable of earning a living with the definite fact of the actual age that he had reached. These are the incidental advantages of my right hon. Friend's proposal.
We all know what is worrying the Government. They are afraid that use could be made of this in arguments with public servants. Normally, one hesitates to advance the famous argument of the girl who had an illegitimate baby, and who said "But it is only a little one." But in this case the number of persons concerned and the sums of money involved is so small that it is relevant to the argument, especially as the concept of the widower's pension, and the approach to equality is already being accepted widely.
We are not doing any great violence by introducing a totally new principle. Therefore the fact that we are doing it on so small a scale is relevant. The number of women Members of this House is small —I agree that it would be an advantage if it were larger—and we do not expect it to be very much larger for a considerable time. The number of women Members of this House who die leaving widowers will be even smaller. Therefore, the amount of money affected will be microscopic.
1.30 p.m.
It would be a grudging kind of person who said "No, you cannot have this until the provision of equality for widow and widower is accepted universally throughout the public service." The argument to the effect "We cannot do this because it might set a precedent" would be all very well if legislation about our pensions and legislation affecting the pensions of the public service generally proceeded simul-

taneously or hand in hand, but they do not. It will be a considerable time before there is another Bill on this subject before the House.
What will happen? Arrangements will be made in the public service giving more generous treatment for widowers than that proposed in the amendment, or that which is already in the Bill. Therefore, we shall have to wait to catch up with them until it happens to be convenient to have another Bill on this subject. That is another reason why we cannot argue that everything that we do in respect of Members' pensions, even so tiny a matter as this, could always be infallibly and decisively quoted in an argument about public service pensions.
I ask the Committee to consider what is involved. What is envisaged is that at some future date there will be an argument with public servants. They will put forward a proposal and the question will be whether they are to base their argument on the incredibly modest amendment put forward by my right hon. Friend. Indeed, I am not at all sure that the next time this matter comes to be argued on the public service generally they might regard my right hon. Friend's amendment as a great deal less than they would be prepared to consider as justice.
We are not opening a door to a great cascade of claims. We are recognising that since we cannot go the whole way required by natural justice, it would be a mistake to throw away the opportunity of this Bill to take one modest step nearer to natural justice. That is what I am asking the Minister to consider.

Mr. McCrindle: I shall detain the Committee for only a few minutes. I wish to lend my weight to the arguments which have been advanced from both sides of the Committee in favour of the amendment.
The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), with whom I have been in combat on pension matters since I came to this House and with whom I have not always seen eye to eye, is at least consistent. Whatever one might say against her—and there are those of us who have said quite a lot against her—I must emphasise that the right hon. Lady is consistent to the extent that when she was. Secretary of State for Social Services, she took a major stride towards sex


equality in one direction, and today she has come to the House with an extremely modest stride towards sex equality in the opposite direction. I find myself instinctively urged to support her amendment.
Members of the Committee may know that in the past I have had a fairly close association with occupational pensions schemes. On many occasions I have contrasted the provision of good occupational schemes with, on the one hand, the State scheme and, on the other hand, public service schemes—and yet again with the scheme adopted for Members of this House. Nearly always the comparison has been extremely favourable towards the practice of good occupational pensions schemes.
The developing practice in occupational pensions is to accept that, in a period of increasing equality, the number of married women who might well become senior executives in a company is growing. There is a tendency for provision for widowers to be made in occupational pensions schemes.
Once again, I am forced to contrast what is done in occupational pensions schemes with what is done in schemes provided for hon. Members. I hope that the Minister will not adopt the line adopted by his predecessors—that he has to be careful not to set a precedent. It has also been said by his predecessors that we should not seek to lead in our own interests. If I thought that there was the slightest chance of leading in any respect in the pension provision for hon. Members, I would be pleased, but there is no chance of that happening. Yet here is a tiny opportunity to begin in that direction.
It is not as though the right hon. Lady is advancing an unreasonable proposition. There are those who think that, if anything, the proposition is too modest. But this is perhaps a first opportunity for us to show the way in the practice of a pension scheme for Members of this House. This may blaze a trail for the occupational pensions schemes to which I have referred and for the public service pensions, which I feel sure will be brought into account by the Minister if he feels that he must resist this amendment.
This is all a question of comparing what is proposed by the right hon. Lady with what already exists in occupational

pensions schemes, within the State scheme and within other public service schemes. If the comparison is with occupational pensions schemes, there is no reason whatever for the Government to resist this amendment. If the comparison is with the State scheme, I believe that the whole ethos of that scheme in respect of sex equality gives the Minister no opportunity to resist it on that account. Therefore, he will have to fall back on the comparison with other public service schemes.
Earlier in the debate I underlined my feeling that the scheme for Members of Parliament is unique, but on that occasion the Minister was unable to accept that argument. Let us assume for the moment that it is not unique in quite the sense that he may have interpreted the word. It is certainly unique in not being an over-generous scheme. I believe that the Minister and the Government tonight have an opportunity, at very small cost, to accept this modest amendment without in any way undermining the continuing advantages of many public service schemes as opposed to the scheme that exists for hon. Members. Whether the comparison is with occupational schemes, with the State scheme or with other pub-lice service schemes, I believe that the Minister's ability to resist must be small. I hope that within his brief he has the flexibility to allow that opposition to disappear completely because if he does not do so I shall feel inclined to join the right hon. Lady in the Division Lobby, if she chooses to divide the Committee on this amendment.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I should like to support the amendment, largely on the grounds of financial fairness.
To the best of my knowledge, the emoluments of Members of this House have always been identical for male and female Members. That being so, I believe that the consequential matters relating to pensions and other entitlements should be strictly on a fair financial basis as well. It is intolerable that a woman Member should be expected to contribute for 10, 25 or 30 years the figure of 5 or 6 per cent to the pension fund and yet her husband should not enjoy under the conditions set out in the Bill a pension comparable with or identical to that which would be enjoyed by


the widow of a male Member. On the ground of financial fairness alone, the amendment should be supported and should be accepted by the Government. If there is a Division, I shall certainly support my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle).
I deny that there can be any question of precedent. Hon. Members are in a unique position. We are not in an occupation which is comparable with professions outside. The manner, terms and mode of our work are special and different from those of other occupations. I would resist any argument by the Government that if this modest proposition is accepted it will be quoted all over the place as a precedent for other groups. Other groups are perfectly able to argue their own cases in their own way. The proposition contained in the amendment should be accepted on its merits. I strongly support what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and others.

Mr. John Smith: I have listened with much interest and sympathy to the arguments put forward with a great deal of eloquence and logic by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and other hon. Members. I take into account the fact that all hon. Members who have spoken have supported the amendment. Important issues of principle are raised by the amendment and I am sure that it is right for them to be debated in the House, particularly since the implications of our decision will inevitably be widely discussed.
The Government have much sympathy with the general objectives of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. As she aptly reminded us, we are the Government who introduced the Sex Discrimination Act, and more strides have been taken under this Government to break down the traditional barriers of sex discrimination than in any other period, even including the period in which universal suffrage was implemented. There is still a long way to go, but I hope that hon. Members will accept that the Government's commitment to the abolition of sex discrimination is genuine. My right hon. Friend has played a notable part in achieving the objectives that have already been reached.
The provisions in the parliamentary scheme, which confer benefits on all widows but only on dependent widowers, are the traditional provisions which carried over in the 1972 Act from the 1965 Act. However undesirable they may be, those provisions are still common form in occupational pension schemes in the public and private sectors. My right hon. Friend said that there were widowers' benefits in the best private pension schemes, and that view was supported by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) who has great experience in these matters. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) went still further.
However, in many of the public and private sector pension schemes, widowers have an entitlement to pensions only on a dependency basis. It would require an analysis of all public sector schemes to find out how many other cases exist, but many of the public and the private sector schemes have benefits for widowers only on a dependency basis.
Abolishing the dependency test entirely, which is not what my right hon. Friend is urging, would create negligible additional costs for the parliamentary scheme. However, that is not the only question that has to be considered. We have to ask whether the parliamentary scheme should take the lead in such a matter—hon. Members have said "Yes"—and if so, should the same provision be made available to the rest of the community". If so, does this alter the hitherto accepted role of occupational pensions schemes? Does it add to them an element of life insurance, as well as a provision for those who are left without support when their spouse dies? These are important matters.
It is interesting to note that the Occupational Pensions Board considered the whole question of equal treatment for men and women in its 1976 report. It concluded that while it would be desirable to move to a position where treatment was entirely equal, progress should be made only as resources permitted. Though an obviously sensible approach, this left a major problem still to be considered. Should schemes where the financial implications of granting equal treatment are small—such as the parliamentary scheme—improve matters for


their widowers before or at the same time as improvements were made by larger schemes? This is a particularly difficult problem in the public service where the objective has been to try to keep schemes broadly in line. I recognise that it is not always achieved, and certainly the relationship between the parliamentary scheme and other public sector schemes sometimes gets a little adrift to the disadvantage of those in the parliamentary scheme.
The Government's conclusion hitherto has been that it would not be right for small schemes to introduce such changes on an ad hoc basis since to do so would be inequitable to those in larger organisations where the cost implications would be substantial.
7.45 p.m.
It is estimated that to abolish the test of dependency completely for future pensions in the public sector only would give rise to an extra cost of £15 million per annum for future service and of double that for all service. To abolish the test throughout the public and private sectors—and it must be remembered that improvements for public service employees quickly lead to pressure for the same treatment in the private sector—would cost £25 million for future service and the cost would be doubled to about £50 million for all service. I recognise that this is not what the amendment proposes, but it is useful for the House to have these figures.

Mrs. Castle: There is not much point in giving the House those figures without giving the figures that are appropriate to our proposal. What would be the repercussive effect of that proposal?

Mr. Smith: I am coming to that, but we have to consider that if adopting this change led to a full dependants' benefit, the costs to which I have referred would be incurred.
Since my right hon. Friend put down her amendment last night, I have tried to establish what would be the cost of limiting the proposal to the age of 65, but I have not yet been able to do so. That is why I shall be making a suggestion later in my speech. My right hon. Friend made a specific request that I should try to get the figures. In the short time available—time that was

shortened still further by the fact that the Bill came on fairly smartly today—it has not been possible to obtain the information which she requested and which I agree is a relevant consideration.
Hon. Members have made short speeches and I do not want to go into a long argument about whether this change would lead us towards a change in the underlying philosophy of pension schemes. It may be that there would be implied an underlying philosophical change pushing schemes towards life insurance rather than just providing for people left without support. Some people would argue that there was an element of that involved in the proposition, but I shall leave it to one side.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn wishes to level the provision upwards at increased cost to public expenditure generally and to individual contributors. She accepts that if the scheme were introduced in the public sector employees would have to pay more. That does not apply in our scheme. The cost here would be negligible because the number of widowers who would qualify is very small, but in other public sector schemes the same consideration does not apply. There are large numbers of women employed in the public sector and a much bigger cost might be involved.
The other queston is whether, even if the broad principle is conceded—and I fully understand the logic of my right hon. Friend's position—this is the best way to achieve what she wants. If we dealt with this matter on the basis of accepting the logic that there should be no sex discrimination, the logical thing to do would be to make all widows' benefits available to all widowers, as my right hon. Friend said. However, she recognised that we must go one step at a time, having regard to public expenditure.
There is another way in which we could go. We could change the provisions for widowers to make them acquire rights in the scheme provided that they satisfy the dependant test. That would achieve sex equality, but I do not propose that. I doubt whether the Committee or any public body would want to move in that direction. It would not be to the advantage of most widowers.
Between the two opposite ends of the logical spectrum we could make a lower level of benefits available to both widows


and widowers if we wanted to achieve equality. However, in all other schemes apart from the parliamentary scheme—if we live in the real world we must realise that there is bound to be a drift between the parliamentary scheme and others—there would be a consequence for the rates of contribution. It may be that men would have to pay a little more. I believe that that happens in some private schemes. That would be necessary to provide acceptable benefits for widowers.
I hope that I have said enough to indicate that we are dealing with far-reaching and fundamental matters. I must ask the Committee's forbearance in allowing me to develop the arguments at some length. I cannot accept my right hon. Friend's amendments as they stand. There are some technical deficiencies. I make nothing of that, as we could sort out the drafting in another place, if nowhere else. However, the issues that they raise are issues that I wish to consider further in consultation with colleagues in other Departments who have an interest.
I have attempted to have some consideration made of these matters since my right hon. Friend tabled her amendments last night. That was the first time that the proposition that they contained was put forward, limiting benefits to men who have reached the age of 65 years. I regret that in the short time available it has not been possible for the Government to consider that issue carefully, or even to assemble the information that would tell us how many people would be involved and the cost of such a scheme as opposed to the cost of conceding across the board. If my right hon. Friend had tabled an amendment to the effect that widowers were to be put in exactly the same position as widows, I should have been forced to resist such an amendment. There has to be phasing for repercussive and public expenditure reasons.
I can assure my right hon. Friend that as it has not been possible for us to consider all these issues in the time scale available, which necessarily has constricted her and us, and we are moving at some pace with the Bill, we shall reconsider the matter carefully and sympathetically with an open mind to ascertain whether any changes can be made which would not be unacceptably costly or repercussive.
I indicate to my right hon. Friend that we are prepared to consider whether restricting the benefits to widowers over 65 years is the best way of giving justice to widowers. It may be that it is not. I throw this out of the top of my head without having considered it with care—we might give consideration to a reduced rate for widowers of all ages, a rate not restricted to those who are 65 years. There are a number of possibilities which we would like to consider as a Government and which we have not been able to consider in the time scale to which we have had to work.
I cannot promise that the Government will, in the light of their further examination, table amendments that will satisfy my right hon. Friend. However, I can assure her that we shall re-examine the matter thoroughly. What is more, we shall come forward with our decisions before the Bill is considered in Committee in another place, so that the Government will be able to reveal their decisions before another place makes its decisions in Committee. Therefore, the opportunity to table amendments will not be denied to those who support my right hon. Friend. No doubt she will find support in another place as she has found it in this place.
As I am not guaranteeing to meet my right hon. Friend, I find it difficult to ask her to withdraw the amendment. I cannot ask her to do so in the light of a Government assurance. However, I have been putting my cards frankly on the table. We shall give consideration to these matters to ascertain whether something can be done. My right hon. Friend must make up her own mind whether she wants to press the amendment to a Division.

Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the promise of consideration. I believe that he is a man of his word. I do not believe that he would say that the Government will give the matter their consideration merely to get the Government off the hook. It is a solemn pledge and he and the Government will be bound in honour to take his promise seriously. May I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that there will be another parliamentary opportunity to effect the decision?

Mr. Smith: I have thought about that myself. Of course, there is another parliamentary opportunity in another place. I have tried to secure the rights of those who will support the amendment in another place. As for there being another opportunity in this place, that rather depends on the amendments that another place returns to this place. We hope to finish the whole of the Bill tonight. The only way in which we shall have an opportunity further to consider the matter will be if a suitable amendment comes back from another place, which could occasion further consideration. I cannot predict that that will happen. I am doing my best to preserve the right to criticise whatever the Government propose.
I am not asking my right hon. Friend to surrender completely and to throw herself into the Government's lap without having the opportunity of recalling us. Whatever decision we reach will be made known before the matter is debated in another place. I give that absolute and categorical undertaking to my right hon. Friend. That is probably the best that I can do to preserve the rights that she might have.
As my right hon. Friend said, a matter of honour is involved. We shall do our best to reconsider the issues fairly. As she will understand, it is a matter for collective Government consideration. I and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House are not in total control of the situation. However, we shall look again at all the issues. I hope that what I have said will assist my right hon. Friend to make up her mind and assist other hon. Members in reaching a conclusion if she chooses to put the matter to the test in a Division.

Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the spirit in which he has replied. There are no two governmental laps into which I should be more willing to throw myself than those of my right hon. Friend the Lord President and his Minister of State. I have faith in their honour, in their good intentions and in their influence on their colleagues in Government. Therefore, in the confident belief that we shall have something before us at a later stage when the Bill is returned to us from another place that

will give us another chance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in Clause 7, page 10, line 8, leave out from 'above' to end of line 10.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following: New Clause 7—Children's pensions—and Amendment No. 11, in Schedule 2, page 20, line 6 column 3, at end insert—
'In section 15, in subsection (2), the words "the next following subsection and to", subsection (3) and, in subsection (4), the words from "and if" to the end of the subsection.'.

Mr. Smith: On Second Reading the Trustees of the Parliamentary Pensions Fund, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and the hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher), argued persuasively for further improvements in the pensions for dependent children of deceased Members and office holders. The Trustees first submitted these proposals as part of their evidence to the Top Salaries Review Body. That body did not accept the proposals on children's pensions saying that with the improvements in widow's pensions that they recommended the parliamentary scheme would provide a satisfactory level of pension for widows and dependent children. In view of the Trustee's comments, the support that they received in the House in the debate and the fact that the provisions for children that they have proposed are fairly modest, the Government have decided that they should be included in the Bill.
The amendments, in effect, implement the Trustees' proposals. They provide that the pensions of children of deceased Members should be based on quarters rather than eighths of an hon. Member's pension entitlement, up to a maximum of two rather than four. They also provide that they should be paid automatically up to the age of 17 years. The increase to the age of 17 years will bring the parliamentary scheme into line with other public service schemes and will not affect children who continue in full-time education beyond 17 years. Although it will affect only very few children, the basing of children's pensions on quarters will


represent a significant improvement for the children and their guardians.
The further improvements go beyond the recommendations of the Review Body. The number of such pensions paid under the parliamentary scheme is very small and the cost will be negligible. I hope that the House will give them its full support.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

8 p.m.

Clause 10

RECKONABLE SERVICE

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I draw the attention of the Committee and of the Government to the plight of one of our colleagues who has written to me about reckonable service. Clause 10 is probably the clause in which our colleague's position is most easily discussed. I am sure that he will not mind if I mention his name. He is Brigadier Clarke, who was a Member of the House for 16 years, from 1950 to 1966. I can do no better than to make his case in his own words. He starts by saying that he badly needs our help and that time is not on his side. He continues:
This Bill is very unfair to me and a number of my ex-colleagues who left the House of Commons about the same time or after.
He then mentions that he had 16 years' service. He points out:
In 1965 Members got their pensions backdated 10 years by the 1965 Act and this was most acceptable to those serving in the House of Commons in 1965. It is of course very unfair to some who retired or were thrown out before 1965.
He then gives examples of two colleagues whom I am sure he would not wish me to name. He goes on:
The 1978 Act allows Members still serving today to claim 15 years back service instead of the 10 years formerly allowed…sly those who left in 1966 with a pension based on £3,000 odd are more in need of the extra five years' pension than those now serving and

accumulating a pension based on £8,000 when they are not even receiving £8,000.
He concludes:
There seems no logic in existing MPs being allowed an extra five years when their retired colleagues, who are more in need
—I do not think that anyone would dispute that—
are barred from the claim.
He hopes that the House will see the logic of his argument and do what it can to help. His case can be summarised briefly as follows: those who were allowed 10 years' back-dating in 1964 should now get the same extra four years as serving Members.
Brigadier Clarke ends with the question:
Why should those who have 'served on' under better pay and conditions and qualified for better pensions deny the extra four years to those retired and now hard up?
I know that the Minister of State has declared himself contrary to the principle of retrospective benefit. We understand how difficult that question is. But this is a plea from the heart from a former colleague, and evidently quite a number of our retired colleagues are in a similar position. I hope that the Minister of State will feel able to comment as generously as he can on the case which I have put forward on Brigadier Clarke's behalf.

Mr. John Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) for putting his case so succinctly. I am sure that our former colleague will be grateful to him for having argued his case.
As the hon. Gentleman anticipated, the difficulty of conferring this benefit upon those of our colleagues who leave before the legislation comes into operation is that it involves an element of retrospection. For the reasons which I outlined in reply to the debate on the Question, That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill, the Government find it difficult to depart from that principle.
The changes proposed in Clause 10 add five years for Members who served before 1964 who qualify under the clause. It is an extra five years at public expense. It is a reasonable proposition for those who qualify. I understand that the hon. Gentleman makes no criticism of the


clause as it stands. The Boyle Committee considered it carefully and made this recommendation.
We are reluctant to depart from the recommendations made by the independent review body. I appreciate that a few minutes ago I moved an amendment which departed slightly from those recommendations and allowed more generous provision for children. However, we took into account the small amount involved and the fact that the Trustees of the parliamentary scheme specifically asked for it in the debate here as well as in evidence to the Boyle Committee.
I have a great deal of sympathy for our former colleagues, particularly those who find themselves in difficult financial circumstances. I can easily understand their plight, given the levels of remuneration which many of them received after many years of devoted service to the public. Obviously, they feel that it is a little unfair that some who survived a little longer—either because they chose to stay longer or because the electorate was kinder to them—should benefit from the provisions which we are about to introduce. It is a fact that every time we make an improvement there will be those who die before they can benefit from it and those who retire before they are eligible for it.
We have looked carefully at all these points. If we depart from the principle of no retrospection we shall be on a very slippery slope. It is for that reason only, not for any lack of sympathy for the predicament of our former colleague to whom the hon. Gentleman referred and of other former colleagues who may be in a similar position, that we cannot do anything about the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause No. 7

CHILDREN'S PENSIONS

'.—(1) Subject to subsection (5) below, section 15 of the Act of 1972 (amount and payment of children's pension) shall be amended as follows:

(2) In subsection (2) (children's pension to be sum equal to one-eighth of deceased's pension

for each child not exceeding four) the words "to the next following subsection and" shall cease to have effect, and for the words "one-eighth" and "four" there shall be substituted the words "one-quarter" and "two" respectively.

(3) Subsection (3) (children's pension where no widow or widower to be one-quarter of deceased's pension if only one child, or one-half of that pension in the case of two or more children) and, in subsection (4), the words from "and if" to the end of the subsection shall cease to have effect.

(4) In subsection (6)(a) (age at which child not in full time education or dependent on deceased ceases to be a relevant child) for the word "sixteen" there shall be substituted the word "seventeen".

(5) Subsections (2) to (4) above and the repeals in section 15 provided for in Schedule 2 to this Act shall not apply for the determination of the annual amount of a children's pension payable for the benefit of a relevant child or children (within the meaning of section 15 of the 1972 Act) of a person who has not been a Member of the House of Commons or the holder of a qualifying office since the passing of the Act.'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 2

PENSIONS OF MEMBERS

'(1) With effect from the dissolution of the present Parliament, a Member's pensionable salary means the salary paid to him pursuant to a resolution of the House of Commons whether or not provision shall have been made in such resolution for a Member's salary to be regarded for pension purposes as being at a higher rate.

(2) Sections 1 and 2 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1976 are hereby repealed.'.—[Mr. Paul Dean.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Paul Dean: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the clause is to base pensions on actual salary, not on the much higher notional salary which now obtains. I argued this matter on Second Reading and, indeed, the last time that we discussed pensions in 1976, so I shall be brief in putting my arguments again today.
I submit that, with the present arrangements, we are giving ourselves pensions privileges which are denied to the rest of the community. This is indefensible, particularly as we are in a special position. Unlike almost anyone else, we fix our own salaries and pensions. In consequence, we are under a special obligation to


ensure that we do not act in ways which appear unfair to others.
There is already much criticism of a number of aspects of public service pension schemes, notably about inflation-proofing. I do not share many of those criticisms, because I look forward to the day when it will be possible for all pensions to be inflation-proofed—at least, up to a certain level. But the fact is that this criticism, which exists strongly outside, also applies to parliamentary pensions. We are included in this valuable provision.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Is not the fact of the matter that Members of Parliament—certainly Back Benchers—forwent about £2,500 for reasons which everyone understands? There was a bit of parliamentary arm-twisting, national psychology on wage policy, and so on. Much as I respect the hon. Gentleman, I think that he is putting the wrong gloss on this matter. I may be wrong, but I understand that, together with many of my Back-Bench colleagues, I forwent about £2,500. I do not think that the Government are doing me any great favour at all.

Mr. Dean: But many other people are in exactly the same position. Many people outside have also been disappointed in their expectations about increases in pay. The pay of many people was frozen absolutely during one of the pay policy phases. As a result of that they suffered in terms of their pension rights. If they retired during that period they suffered in terms of their pension rights permanently.
What I am saying is that we are creating for ourselves a privilege which is denied to other people. It is the distinction between what we are doing here and what is generally available outside which is the cause of criticism. I am not saying—perhaps this helps the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire)—that our pension scheme is over-generous. Far from it: only recently have we begun to introduce pensions which are adequate by modern standards or which are in any way comparable with those attached to other jobs. Our pension scheme dates only from 1964. By most modern standards of pension schemes that is very recent.
Yesterday I was supplied with some figures by the Lord President. One has only to look at those figures to see that as a result of the recent introduction of our pension arrangements a large number of our former colleagues are excluded already. According to the information that I was given, at least 272 of our former colleagues are not eligible for a parliamentary pension because the scheme was introduced so recently. At least 31 of our former colleagues are aged 80 and over and receive no pension at all. There will be an even larger number of widows, because women tend to live longer than men.
Those figures clearly illustrate that only recently have we begun to introduce pensions for ourselves which are at all comparable with those attached to outside jobs. I do not criticise that aspect of the matter.
But we put ourselves in a false position when, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said, having funked Boyle on pay, we then try, through an artificial device, to provide pensions for ourselves based on a notional rather than an actual salary. No one would deny that we are in an anomalous position. In the Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire said that this was an anomaly. The Boyle Report said the same. The Government stay that they are carrying out the Boyle recommendations.
Paragraph 4, on page 2 of the Boyle Report, states that
We are also perturbed by the establishment of two different levels of salary for pension purposes and other purposes. We can sympathise with the reasoning which lay behind this decision, but we nevertheless regard it as anomalous.
The authoritative Boyle Report says that this is an anomalous position. The anomaly was started in the 1976 Act and we are continuing it in this Bill. My fear is that it is now in danger of becoming a permanent anomaly in our pension arrangements.
Since we are in this unfortunate and, in my view, indefensible position, we must consider the special position of those of our colleagues who will be retiring shortly. To try to meet their special position, which they are in through no


fault of their own, the new clause provides that the present notional salary arrangements for pension purposes should apply to Members who retire at or before the dissolution of the present Parliament. It provides that their pensions should continue to be based on the Boyle salary. Without that provision, through no fault of their own, they would find that for the whole of their pension lives they would be penalised because of the sacrifice that the House made, rightly or wrongly, in not accepting the Boyle recommendation.
I suggest that there are special reasons why we should continue this artificial arrangement for those who are to retire shortly, but to go on perpetuating that arrangement permanently for those who will continue to serve is indefensible and, in comparison with practice outside, it puts us in a position that we cannot sustain effectively.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. McCrindle: I shall take only a few minutes to endorse the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). The whole question of a notional salary is not only an extremely dangerous basis on which to proceed when dealing with parliamentary pensions; it is a dangerous and emotive concept. The Committee has a responsibility to consider whether we should allow the possibility of this concept continuing after the Bill becomes law.
I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), who said that he did not feel that the Government had done him any favours by taking a substantial amount in salary and, in return, allowing his pension to be based on a notional figure.
On the one hand we are buying ourselves a pension privilege and, on the other, we are continuing to have a disadvantage in salaries. One cannot separate pensions from salaries and conditions. If the truth were told—although this is not widely believed or welcomed by the public—we have for far too long been prepared to find a reason why our salaries, conditions and pensions should never be brought up to the levels that would prevail if we were to receive a reward comparable to that received by those who fulfil similar functions in other spheres of activity.
I appreciate the difficulty of finding a true comparison, but we shall go on having these problems as long as Governments of both politcal complexions dodge the basic issue. The issue is that at some time Members' conditions, salaries and pensions must be looked at in a more rational and dispassionate light than they have been so far. What we are discussing is part of an age-old problem. Members of Parliament have never quite caught up.
I understand the Government's feeling. They wish to be decent and understanding to those who are looking forward to retirement at the dissolution of this Parliament. The Government find in the basis of a notional salary an escape exit through which they are only too pleased to walk. I am not here to criticise the Government for having taken that opening. I question, however, whether it is right to perpetuate, almost to institutionalise the concept of a notional salary for Members of Parliament when the concept of a notional salary does not appear to prevail in many other pension schemes. If the Minister takes that on board he must accept the clause.
If the Committee is serious it will tell the Government tonight that it understands why they felt that the concept had to be introduced in the first place, that it understands that they had no wish to be other than decent and understanding to our colleagues who will retire at the dissolution of this Parliament, but enough is enough, and if they go on perpetuating and institutionalising the concept of the notional salary they will simply be postponing the day when they are forced to look at the whole question of pensions, salaries and conditions for Members of Parliament.

Mr. Michael McGuire: The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), I believe unwittingly, in trying to show why his clause was a good one indicated to the public at large that we had conferred upon ourselves by the notional salary arrangements considerable benefits. Subsequently he tried to explain that he did not think that our pension schemes were unduly generous.
I was one of those who took part in the to-ing and fro-ing by Back Benchers when we introduced the notional salary arrangement for pension purposes. Members were told that they would not get


the Boyle Report recommendations, but that they would get some kind of increase. The notional salary was introduced partly to help our colleagues who had retired and to give death-in-service benefits to widows who needed them. The arrangement was agreed to out of a concern for Members who cannot help themselves—a concern that the hon. Member for Somerset, North has always shown. That was why we accepted a cut of about £2,500 an why the notional salary arrangements were introduced.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Does the hon. Member agree that the motion that the House passed as that a proper salary for a Member of Parliament was £8,000 a year? The notional salary surely is the one that is being paid. We might all be in favour of that being abolished, but let us not use the words "notional salary" in the wrong context. The notional salary is the one that does not accord with the resolution.

Mr. McGuire: I take note of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, but he must understand that I am simply trying to put the record straight.
It is worth considering what the public think of Members of Parliament. When Members' salaries are increased substantially or modestly the issue is usually a nine days' wonder in the eyes of the public. The public already believes that we are being paid a lot more than we are. It does not believe that we are being paid as badly as we make out. We are told to prepare for a backlash when we give ourselves reasonable salaries which, at any rate, are in no sense generous when compared with those paid in New Zealand, Australia, France, or Germany. In terms of pay and pensions we are not in the same league. The public generally thinks that we are much more generously paid than we are and that we have far better conditions than we have.
I believe that there would be no backlash. I believe that the man in the street believes that those who will not fight for themselves will not fight for anybody else. I have been a life-long trade unionist, and trade unionism provides a good example of what I am saying. Trade unionists protect the interests of themselves and their families. Like Members of Parliament, most of them move into executive posi-

tions at a late age for pension purposes—usually at the age of 40 or 45. I have never seen any virtue in doing a job on the cheap. Trade unionists do not want anyone to do that.
I wish to echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle). We have taken out of our hands what some regard—I do not share the view—as an onerous and difficult task. We put the responsibility for determining our terms and conditions of salary and pension on to a committee. That is favourite practice in the House of Commons—if there is anything difficult, give it to a committee. Yet on three successive occasions we have ignored the fundamental findings and reasoning of that committee. We have picked out little bits as a palliative or sweetener, but have ignored the main recommendation. To use my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's words, Lord Boyle is saying "Back us or sack us." There is no point in having a committee which does a lot of hard work and research and recommends a certain course of action if we are then to say that its recommendations would not be popular.
We had better get this matter straight once and for all. If we do, and if we secure the pension and salary conditions that we deserve, my right hon. Friend the Minister will find that the issue is not even a nine days' wonder. The British public will say that they thought that we were getting that much all along. That is what we should aim for as speedily as possible, and that is why I do not support the clause.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I shall be brief. I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire). If I have a weakness while at home it is listening to the radio—not the television—and anyway I rarely listen to it. I was listening recently to a quiz programme that my wife had turned on. One of the questions was "What is a Member of Parliament's salary?" The first answer given was £10,000, and that is exactly what one would expect to hear from most people on the basis of one's knowledge of one's constituents. I listened a few weeks earlier to a programme in which Sir Richard Marsh, who should know better, suggested that by adopting the notional salary arrangements we were somehow


benefiting ourselves and cheating. We all know that what we did in 1975 was to cheat, if anybody, ourselves by depriving ourselves of a substantial part of the proper salary arrived at by the Review Body on Top Salaries. I share my hon. Friend's view that we cannot go on doing that. It is a pointless exercise in any event. If we thought in 1975 that we were setting an example to the rest of the country I can only conclude that nobody noticed.
It is not that I am suggesting that there has not been a substantial measure of restraint by the trade union movement in recent years; indeed, there has, thank heavens, and we are all duly grateful to it. But nobody noticed, in my experience. All that happened was that the newspapers carried the usual headline—"MPs vote themselves another rise."
In my view, it does not make the blindest bit of difference whether that increase be £200, £2,000 or £4,000 to get the proper level of salary for the job. We shall get exactly the same outcry for exactly the same period of time. Then everybody will forget it, both for good and for ill. They will forget it in the pejorative sense of blaming us for treating ourselves too well, and they will forget it, too, if we do not vote ourselves what we should be paid, in the sense of not following the example that we have set.
I hope that immediately after the next election we can dispense with all the nonsense that is causing us so much trouble on this Bill and pay ourselves a proper salary and, therefore, not have to have a notional salary for pension purposes. I urge both Front Benches to agree on that before a General Election campaign, so that we can take the acrimony and the political advantage out of the proposal of any party to pay a salary increase after a General Election.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Pym: The new clause, characteristically and ingeniously designed by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) is, in fact, an attack upon the concept of the notional salary. My hon. Friend was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle). The two Labour Members who have spoken on the new clause said that they could not support it, but nevertheless, they were

making precisely the same point—that it is wrong to have one salary which is the amount that we receive and a notional salary which is the basis of our pension.
That was referred to in the report of the Review Body on Top Salaries. Paragraph 29 says that the salary that the Review Body recommended in the year before—that was 1975—
of £8,000 for Members of Parliament…was accepted by Parliament as the appropriate rate for the job but was not fully implemented it was decided…that it would be used as a notional salary for pension purposes.
The report goes on to say:
We point this out as one more manifestation of the disadvantages of not paying the proper level of salary for the job.
It is not only my hon. Friend and those of us on the Opposition Benches who do not like the idea of a notional salary. I do not think that it has any friends on the other side of the Committee. This arose on the Second Reading. I am quite certain that it ought to be ended. I interpret my hon. Friend's new clause as being one of bringing the notional salary to an end, but it is not the only means, as he himself would be the first to acknowledge. The most obvious way of doing it is to adjust the salaries of hon. Members one way or another. That would be one way of doing it, and it could be ended more or less at once.
I think the whole procedure here is wrong, as I said the other night. The delay in implementing this report has simply made the discrepancy worse than it otherwise would be. But in this brief intervention from this Box, I want to ask how the Government propose to end the anomaly of the notional salary. I dare say that it is a question that the Minister would prefer to answer when he, or his right hon. Friend, presents to the House of Commons the Government's conclusions about how Members' salaries are to be adjusted, which I think is due in a week or two's time. I think that that point would be the very latest moment when it would be appropriate for the Government to say that the notional salary should be ended, because I think that it ought to ended as being a completely unsatisfactory and unacceptable way to proceed.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) said that by agreement this ought


to be done immediately after the General Election. As a matter of fact, that is how it happened in 1970. I do not see any reason why it should not be done before the General Election. I am not sure that it is not better to do it in the dying days of one Parliament rather than the opening days of another Parliament. There is quite a good case for saying that.
After all, the Home Secretary has introduced a Bill to the House today to say that the election expenses are to be increased. That is normally done, as a matter of fact, in the dying days of a Parliament, and it seems to me quite appropriate. I think that hon. Members on all sides of the Committee would agree that it would be just as appropriate, and in many ways more appropriate, to do it in the dying days of a Parliament rather than in the early days of a fresh Parliament. But that is an opinion, of course, about which hon. Members may differ. Perhaps it goes a bit wide of the new clause.

Mr. Russell Kerr: It will not happen.

Mr. Pym: It would happen, of course, if enough hon. Members on the hon. Gentleman's side wanted it to happen. That is my comment on that.
Anyhow, one way or another, the notional salary must be ended, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how the Government intend to end that anomaly. If he is not able to do so tonight, will he be prepared to tell when he introduces a motion about Members' salaries next week or the week after? Will he then say how the Government intend to adjust this matter?

Mr. John Smith: I think that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) will have not been surprised at the wry grins on the faces of some of my hon. Friends below the Gangway, and, no doubt, behind me, as he uttered certain sentiments towards the end of his speech. I note that the right hon. Gentleman, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, is in favour of substantial increases in Members' pay before the end of this Parliament, and I am sure that that will be taken into account by my hon. Friends when they consider the matter. At least,

that is how I interpret him, and I think that that is the only way one can interpret what he said.
As for the question put to me about the difference between notional pay and actual pay, I think that I must decline to answer that tonight because I do not think that it arises strictly within the context of the Bill, although it was raised on the new clause introduced by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). It is a matter to which the House will inevitably return, as has been signalled by many hon. Members in their speeches on the Bill, in the debate which we shall have on Members' pay at a date, I hope, not too long from now.
In introducing the new clause, the hon. Member for Somerset, North said, as he did on Second Reading, that he was concerned about the arrangement whereby Members' pensions are based on notional salaries for pension purposes because he felt that it was criticised outside the House. I think that he may be exaggerating that criticism a little, but I have no doubt that there is a feeling outside the House that it is perhaps a somewhat unfortunate way of going about these matters. If it comes to that, there is a fairly widespread feeling within the House also that it is an unfortunate way of going about things.
I suggest that the hon Gentleman ought to bear in mind, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) reminded him, that the purpose of introducing the notional salary was to protect Members in their retirement against the background that Members of the House as a whole had decided in the national interest to forgo some of the promulgated salary. In a sense, if they had lost in their pension, it would have been a double penalty. That was the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Ince, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler), was anxious to put on the record.
In my view, it was praiseworthy that Members of Parliament decided in the national interest to forgo an increase which had been recommended for them by an independent body. I believe that it was felt at the time—I certainly remember sharing that view—that it would be too much to penalise Members in their pension arrangements as well.


That, I suggest, is the background to this matter.
The new clause raises major issues of pay policy as well as of pension policy. I believe that the hon. Member for Somerset, North will acknowledge that. These matters received a thorough airing last week on Second Reading, and I think that that was entirely legitimate since one cannot discuss pensions without at the same time discussing pay. We come back to that again and again in our discussions on the Bill. I think, however, that we shall have a discussion on that matter shortly, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will make his point then, just as the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire will return to his theme.
There is one point which I must take up with the hon. Member for Somerset, North because he suggested—and his hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) rather more carefully suggested—that similar arrangements should be available to other occupational groups or that other groups did not have this notional salary arrangement. The short answer is that many groups do, and such arrangements for having a different notional salary now cover many other employees. Perhaps I should mention them so that not only the Committee but the general public may know about them: Armed Forces personnel, doctors and dentists, the judiciary and the higher Civil Service.
These are groups of employees who have not been paid the full salary rates recommended for them after independent review although those rates have been accepted by the Government as the proper rates for the job. It therefore seemed entirely right that prospective pensioners within these groups should be protected in the same way. I would argue, therefore, that where there is like and like, Members of Parliament will be treated no differently from, or be treated no better than, other groups are treated in relation to recommendations for their salary levels which have come forward
The alternative to having a notional salary was either to penalise Members of Parliament in a double sense, by penalising them in their pensions, or else to give pay increases well outside the Government's guidelines. Perhaps that is what the Opposition would have done, I do not know.
The fact is that this notional salary legislation has been on the statute book for almost two years now. I think that it would be a great mistake to change it in the way proposed. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there are two ways of dealing with it—to pull down the pension or to jack up the salary. We are not dealing with the salary at the moment and that is a matter which the House will have an opportunity to consider.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to safeguard the position of hon. Members who retire at the next General Election. That is fully appreciated. The effect of carrying this new clause, however, would be to reduce for the future the level of parliamentary pensions, which would be a retrograde step and therefore I hope that the Committee will not agree to adopt the new clause.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause No. 4

FUTURE CHANGES IN BASIS OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO AND PAYMENTS OUT OF THE FUND

(1) For subsection (7) of section 3 of the Act of 1972 (which was inserted by section 1 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1976) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
(7) Any reference in this Part of this Act to a resolution of the House of Commons relating to the remuneration of Members shall be construed as a reference to an effective resolution of the House of Commons relating to the remuneration of Members and, where there are two or more such resolutions in force, as a reference to those resolutions taken together.

(2) In section 35(1) (interpretation) of the Act of 1972 the following shall be inserted after the definition of "contribution"—
'effective resolution' means a resolution which is not framed as an expression of opinion".

(3) This section shall not affect the operation under the Act of 1972 of any resolution passed by the House of Commons before the commencement of this Act.'—[Mr. John Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. George Cunningham) put down this new clause. I understand that it is impossible for him to be here this evening and the Government have undertaken to move it on his


behalf because it has the full support of Government. The whole question of abstract motions is a rather arcane subject and perhaps I could briefly indicate to the House the reason why this new clause is put forward by my hon. Friend and why it is supported by the Government.
Its effect is to ensure that Members will have full freedom to discuss their own salaries and proposed increases without regard to what may be Government policy. They have done so ever since parliamentary salaries were introduced in 1911 by the device of abstract motions, that is to say, motions framed as expressions of opinion which do not require the Queen's recommendation and are not governed by the Standing Orders and practice of the House which reserve the initiative in financial matters to the Crown. The reasons that abstract motions were sufficient to justify the payment of increased salaries was that the Government, having moved or agree to them, could be relied upon to present in due course Estimates sufficient to cover the increases.
Due to an oversight the freedom enjoyed by Members to move or amend such motions was lost by the enactment of the Ministerial Salaries and Members Pensions Act 1965, the predecessor of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972. Under those Acts the Parliamentary Contributory Pensions Fund is maintained partly by contributions in the form of deductions from Members' salaries and partly by Exchequer contributions out of voted money. Every increase in Members salaries automatically leads not only to an increase in the sums deducted from the salaries but also to an increase in the Exchequer contributions. Accordingly any motion leading to such an increase ought to have the Queen's recommendation and no amendment would be in order unless it was covered by the Queen's recommendation.
This effect of the Acts was overlooked on all occasions when motions about Members' salaries were before the House until it was discovered last July, after the Government had tabled its motion and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury had tabled his amendment. If the Acts remained as

they are without this amendment it would in future be impossible for motions about Members' salaries, however framed, to be treated as abstract motions. The clause would restore the character of abstract motions to motions framed as an expression of opinion. It would thus restore to Members their freedom of expression and their freedom to move amendments.
The operation of the Acts would then be dependent on effective resolutions, that is to say, resolutions not framed as expressions of opinion. Such resolutions will, of course, require the Queen's recommendation and it will not be open to Members to move amendments not covered by the Queen's recommendation. In the normal case an effective resolution would be moved immediately after the corresponding abstract motion or even, if no amendment was put down to the abstract motion, instead of it.
One possible effect of the clause, however, might be some delay, in certain circumstances, in the payment of increased salaries, even to the level proposed by the Government. This could happen if an abstract motion proposing an increase were amended against the wishes of the Government so as to advocate a greater increase. The Government might not then be able to proceed at once with their effective motion and until they did so there would be no basis for making greater deductions from Members' salaries. Salaries would then have to continue to be paid at the existing rates. However, I very much doubt whether that situation would be likely to last for any length of time.
8.45 p.m.
I believe that my hon. Friend has done the Committee a service by pursuing the matter and tabling the clause. Although the restoration of this freedom to hon. Members to discuss their salaries in terms of an abstract motion does not mean that they will be able effectively to vote themselves an increase, in that an abstract motion will still require to be backed by an effective resolution carrying the Queen's recommendation, it is still an important matter to restore to hon. Members the freedom that many of them thought they enjoyed. They have been deprived of it only by reason of a legislative accident. It is to cure the results


of that accident that I am happy to move the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 5

PENSIONS OF MEMBERS (No. 2)

(1) Section 7 of the Act of 1972 shall be further amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3) for "one-sixtieth" in paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted "one forty-fifth".'—[Mr. Ronald Bell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I wish the Government were moving the motion on my behalf, but unfortunately I have to move it myself.
I very much regret that through the years we have these invidious debates about our own remuneration and emoluments. It is time the matter was sorted out and we had an automatic system.
I have been in the House for rather a long time, and I know that this procedure has gone on and on. I have heard many colleagues on both sides of the Chamber saying how embarrassing and undesirable it is that we should spend time debating our emoluments when we are sent here to attend to the affairs of the country. However, we have always avoided dealing with these subjects. We have adopted temporary expedients, and we are still in that position, as recent speeches have indicated.
The purpose of the clause is the replacement of the period of 40 years in the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act by a period of 30 years. At present, for an hon. Member to obtain a full pension—by which I mean a pension of two-thirds of the relevant salary—he must serve for 40 years. In practical terms that means that he would need to be elected first to this House at the age of 25 and never thereafter for 40 years lose his seat. That means in practice that no hon. Member will ever have a full pension unless he be someone so remarkable as Winston Churchill, Earl Winterton or Robin Turton, as he was. It is something that happens about once in a generation.
I cannot believe that it makes sense that we should base our pensions on

sixtieths rather than forty-fifths. Some may regard my proposal as unduly moderate, in that 30 years is a very long time, bearing in mind the average age at which people may be elected Members. I suppose that the average is somewhere in the 40s, so even 30 years is a long time.
The present strange and totally inappropriate period was chosen by analogy with the public service. We have heard a great deal about that. We heard the other night on Second Reading about the compelling analogy with the public service. There is no compelling analogy. The public service is not a unitary thing. It is a very varied category, and inside it there are different periods.
Who, for instance, would be so foolish as to imagine that High Court judges should have to serve for 40 years to acquire a full pension? They could never do so. They are appointed at age 50, 55 or even 60. They would be 100 before they received a full pension. They are expected to serve for 15 years to receive that full pension. That is the public service. The reason for that provision is obvious. Without such a provision a judge would never receive a full pension.
Who imagines that normally people are elected to the House of Commons at the age of 25 or that it is in any sense normal for a person to retain his seat, through all the vicissitudes of politics, for 40 unbroken years? That is fairyland. It does not make sense. We could look around the world for comparisons, as we can with pay. I have had rather an "Australian day" today. I have been entertaining some of our Australian visitors from the Canberra Parliament. I asked them about this subject as a matter of interest and one said "Good gracious. We are expected to serve 20 years for a full pension." I said "May I quote you this evening in Committee?" He said "Of course you may." This was the Speaker of the Australian Parliament. In the Dutch Parliament there is a rather more complicated system, under which Members serve from six to 10 years for a full pension. But in Britain it is 40 years.
The whole system is based on the analogy of the public service, by which I greatly suspect is meant the Civil Service. People enter the Civil Service at the age


of, perhaps, 16, 18 or 20 and have a lifetime career in it. They retire after 40 years' service at age 60 which is very nice. In addition, the pension is non-contributory. I know that I shall be told that Civil Service Pay Research Unit is supposed to take this into account in assessing rates of pay. Personally, I prefer Hans Andersen and Grimm. I see the point, however. When I look at the remuneration of Members of Parliament I think that someone must have taken that factor wrongly into account in our case.
There is no substantial argument against what I am proposing, except the argument, which I suppose will be put forward, that someone agreed to this. It will be said that there was awful pressure to get a Bill presented and the 1922 Committee and the corresponding body on the Labour side of the Committee had to join forces in an unfamiliar coalition, a sort of Lib-Con pact—

Mr. English: Lab-Con.

Mr. Bell: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who is keenly perceptive of these things and who will, I know, support me. It will be said that this pact had to exert pressure on the Leader of the House and that that was the only way we could get the Bill. It will be pointed out that it was agreed that we would ask only for improvements which were already embodied in the Civil Service scheme. For that reason it is suggested that we should feel debarred from doing something which every right hon. and hon. Member present knows to be absolutely reasonable and common sense.
There is no right hon. or hon. Members present who thinks that it makes sense for Members of Parliament to have to serve from the age of 25 to the age of 65 in unbroken membership to secure a full pension of two-thirds of the exiguous salary. Some career argument can be put up. I sympathise with the Minister of State. He is put up to do this job. He does not have the authority to agree to my new clause. It does not matter what I say, he cannot agree to it. He would have to go somewhere else, presumably to the Treasury. That is always the difficulty in these cases.

Mr. John Smith: If there is to be a very sharp increase in Members' contri-

butions, it might be decent to ask Members as well.

Mr. Bell: I was not thinking of that in the least—certainly not. We have a contributory pension. I do not know why. If there is this compelling analogy with the public service, I point out that the public service has a non-contributory pension.

Mr. English: The hon. and learned Gentleman might care to ask the Minister why the police, the firemen and Members of Parliament should be the only three groups in the 7 million employees affected by public service pension schemes who are in the same position as ourselves of paying contributions to a fund which does not exist.

Mr. Bell: Inasmuch as the fund does not exist, there is no need really to bother about its state. These pensions are paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom—it is no good pretending to the contrary—and the provisions for a 5½ per cent. or a 6 per cent. contribution, or whatever it is, are purely put in as a matter, I suppose, of statutory procedure. I do not quite know what expression to use. There is no actual fund. It is not like the railway pensions fund, which owns pictures, candlesticks and all kinds of things. It is not that sort of fund. It is not the sort of fund which one might find any day at Mentmore. It is an actuarial fund. It is a nonsense and it does not pay for itself. The Treasury contributes two or three times as much as hon. Members, so what sort of fund is that?
When we look at the levels of emolument that we are talking about, I suggest that there is absolutely no reason why we should not make this obvious change, without any change in the contribution which hon. Members make. I simply put it forward in the clearest terms that a period of 40 years is nonsense.
This is a miserable little Bill. A tremendous lot of fuss has been made about it. It is quite long. It has a lot of clauses and endless provisions. Taking all the provisions together, the extra years and the much publicised advantages for children and widows, the whole thing, for a House of 635 people, is costing the Treasury £60,000 a year. I am surprised that the Minister dares to present it to


the House. The only thing that can be said for the Bill is that, but for the activities of the Back Benchers on each side of the House, we should not have had a Bill at all, therefore we ought to be grateful for this one.
I challenge the Minister to offer any good and sensible reason why the new clause should not be accepted. I shall take it to a Division. I always take things to a Division as a matter of principle. If I can get another hon. Member to act as Teller with me, I shall divide the Committee. I do not believe in moving motions and then withdrawing them.
I challenge the Minister to give any single sensible reason why Members of the House of Commons should have to be Members for 40 years before they get a full pension. If we do not get this provision tonight we shall get it sooner or later. The Minister knows that. We are the only Parliament in the world with this ridiculous rule, or with anything remotely approaching this ridiculous rule. This provision will have to come. If hon. Members will have a little bit of courage—it is a free vote on each side—it could come tonight, and I hope that it will.

Mr. McGuire: I want to tell the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) that I support his views. He rightly said that there are some people who think that the period should be reduced even to 30 years. I also support that. But he must not conclude that because I will not act as Teller with him tonight, I lack courage. I do not believe in engaging in fruitless exercises and having my colleagues dash from all parts of the building, knowing full well that there will be nothing in it at the end of the day. I do not consider that to be a demonstration of courage or anything else. I think it is a bit of nonsense. But I want to share the hon. and learned Gentleman's thoughts, and to fire a shot across the bows from this side of the House, because I think that he is absolutely right.
9.0 p.m.
I, too, have discussed pension arrangements with our Australian colleagues. I came here not as a young man, although I was younger than average. In spite of that, I would have to be 78 before I became entitled to a full pension which, I am told, is based on some kind of pub-

lic service. I do not need to repeat the arguments against the new clause, because the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield demolished them very well. My Australian colleagues did not believe me when I told them the facts.
I said that I came into the House at a reasonably young age. I am glad to see present some of my colleagues who came in at the same time. Some of them came in a bit younger, but 38 is not a bad age at which to become a Member of Parliament. When I told our Australian colleagues that I would be 78 before I became entitled to the full pension, they did not believe me. They also did not believe me when I told them what our pitiful salary was. Quite frankly, they thought that we were mad.
The trouble is that the public at large has a quite different impression with regard to the salaries and pension arrangements of Members of Parliament. The level of salaries and pensions is pitched much higher in the public mind. The sooner we change that attitude and have a pension scheme which is related to reality, the better. The reality is that we have so many good examples. Judges are one. Judges are appointed to the Bench at a later age than Members of Parliament, because account must be taken of their experience, knowledge and distinguished career before they are appointed. In my opinion, 15 years is a reasonable time in respect of judges.
However, I believe that Members of Parliament should have something better than the present pension arrangements. When I retire I should like to think that it will be on a better pension. I believe that the present requirement of 40 years for full pension entitlement must be reduced. I think that 30 years would be an improvement. It would mean that a Member of Parliament who served for 15 years would be entitled to half pension, and the sooner we do that the better. I do not believe that the public would condemn us for doing so, especially if they want Members of Parliament to be drawn from all walks of life.
My own experience is no different from that of some of my colleagues who have worked all of their lives and become active in the trade union and Labour movement. Indeed, within the Labour Party one generally has to go through a kind of unofficial apprenticeship, and if


he can get into this House before he is 40 I think it can be said that that person has done reasonably well. On average I think that Tory Members—this might even apply to Liberal Members—come into this House when they are a few years younger than Labour Members. That was my experieince in 1964 when I first came into the House.
In the past Back-Bench Members of Parliament have demonstrated that they can exercise power collectively and impose their will, or at least get a large part of their way. I believe that we must demonstrate this will—perhaps not tonight but at some later stage—on the matter of salaries which we must get right, and on pensions. Back Benchers must assert their authority and get what they are entitled to.
The public will not give two figs about it. They think that we have always enjoyed these benefits. Anyway, Harry Truman once said,
If you can't stand the heat, keep out of the kitchen.
I think that we should be able to take the criticism. We are educated politically enough to stand in our corner. Standing in our corner does not mean apologising for our miserable salaries and our miserable pensions.
I support the hon. and learned Member. I want to fire a shot across the bows of my own party, which is in Government. I would do the same if the Conservatives were in power. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Conservatives had implemented the Boyle Report for Back Benchers in 1972. He is absolutely right; they did. I hope that some day my Government will have the courage to implement provisions for Back Benchers, but tonight we are discussing pensions. I support the principle advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman although I think that his terms were a bit too harsh. I hope to see the day when we achieve the 30-year category for Members of Parliament.

Mr. English: I support the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) in principle also. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) I do not see the point in having a Division at this late hour—late by the standards of this subject—especially

when, unlike the previous Bill, there are no major whipping arrangements by either of the major parties.
This debate has shown the extraordinary weakness of the Bill and of the whole system that applies to pensions in the House. I believe that when this Bill was being considered the trustees of the House consulted the Treasury. That is a very unlikely set-up. I was taught years ago in the trade union movement that if you were arguing with the employer you should consult your own independent advisers, not the employer's advisers.
At the beginning of the discussion on this Bill we had the most appalling statement—which has never been contradicted—that there are still 12 children of hon. Members who retired before 1964 without pensions. This Bill does not cover them, no other Bill covers them, nothing covers them. That is the paltriness of the exercise. I do not think that the pensions of 12 children would break the Treasury. Nor do I think that the amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield would break anybody.
The Expenditure Committee said that there were 7 million people—one-third of the working population—who were affected by public sector pension schemes. These schemes are a mess. They are an absolute, complete and total mess. We described them as "a hotch-potch", using slightly more polite terms. Nobody in Government has ever bothered to look at them and see why these 7 million people should all be on different provisions.
There are contributions and no funds. There are funds and no contributions, strangely enough. There are notional funds, and the Civil Service itself arranges that it does not pay any contributions with the exception of about 1½ per cent. towards widows' pensions. Quite clearly there should be some order brought into this, not only for Members of Parliament but for those most immediately akin to us—the police and the firemen—and for all the other people on public sector pensions.
But for the weakness of successive Governments in arguing the matter against institutions such as insurance companies, we would have had a system of transferability of pensions throughout the land for everybody in employment.


This Labour Government like other Governments, have, I regret to say, been too weak to bother about the situation. I believe that such a proposal would benefit the economy.
The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield wishes to bring us into line with other people. He said that Members of Parliament often came to this place late in their lives. But that is also the case with other jobs. There is transferability in some schemes, especially in the public sector, but that is not the case in this House.
I am sure that if I were to continue on that line of argument the Chair would rule me out of order, but economically I believe that it would benefit the country as well as every individual if there were transferability between all pension schemes. There is certainly no reason for such a mishmash, except that which can be laid at the door of inefficiency on the part of Government. There certainly is inefficiency. The Government's reply to the report of the Expenditure Committee on this subject was purely negative. The Government could not be bothered to try to sort out the mess which they themselves had created. We are now in a position where one part of the mess involves ourselves.
I strongly suggest that, although we must pass this Bill in this Parliament, the next Parliament leaves us only one course. We cannot propose what should be done, for we are not allowed to do so by the rules of procedure of this House. We may not propose an increase in expenditure. There is a lot to be said for that rule but what we can do is to propose reductions of expenditure. If the present position continues, whenever a Treasury Estimate comes before the House relating to every public sector employment, we shall have to propose in the next Parliament that that Estimate be reduced to the same level as that relating to Members of Parliament. Then at last it may be true that the taxpayer will save some money and it will be apparent that this House is perhaps a little under-paid, a little under-pensioned and, above all, that its widows and children are under-pensioned by comparison with legislatures abroad.

Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, West (Mr.

English), and Ince (Mr. McGuire), and the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell), who moved the amendment, referred to pensions and to the practice in other legislatures. I have no doubt that they were right in saying that this Parliament, in comparison with other occupations and other legislatures, does not particularly well provide by way of pensions for Members and dependants.
There is one small point in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West which I must take up. He referred to the case of the 12 children. The number refers to children to whom pensions are now being paid. This matter was referred to on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher). That is a matter on which we have taken action, because I managed to persuade the Committee earlier this evening to adopt an improvement in the scheme in that respect. Therefore, we have dealt with the 12 children.
The hon. and learned Gentleman put the argument for a faster accrual rate and suggested that the scheme should be based on one-forty-fifth rather than one-sixtieth. He was right to say that on average Members of Parliament serve for considerably less than a full career in the House of Commons. In making comparisons with some other public service pension schemes, I should point out that the norm is one-eightieth rather than one-sixtieth. I understand that if a person worked for 40 years in the home Civil Service, he would receive a half-pension on retirement. So perhaps the parallel in respect of Parliament should be 30 years, because that would give one-half.

Mr. English: What contribution?

Mr. Smith: That raises another matter. I know that my hon. Friend expressed scepticism about the way in which Civil Service pensions are dealt with. The defence to that argument is that as part of the pay research process the full amount of the contribution paid by outside employers is typically about 5 per cent. and it is deducted in the course of deliberations. Civil servants also pay a direct contribution of 1½ per cent. of pensionable salary for widows and family benefits.

Mr. English: But we are not even paid the arbitrators' award.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Smith: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to answer one question before he asks another.
A further deduction of 1¾ per cent., calculated by the Government Actuary, is made to reflect the difference in pension benefits, including inflation proofing, between the Civil Service scheme and outside schemes. I say that so that all the information is put on the record.
I do not seek to argue that there are parallels with other schemes, or to go into a complicated analysis of the question whether our scheme is better or worse than others. Many schemes stand on their own, and one can get parallels and non-parallels within the public sector.
My main point is that this matter was considered carefully by the Boyle Committee. It considered the question of a faster rate of accrual and took on board the fact that it is rare for an hon. Member to serve the 40 years necessary to qualify for a full pension entitlement. The Committee said that it had been told that the average length of service of an hon. Member was 17 to 20 years.
It reminded us that certain other points had to be taken into account, including the fact that Parliament was not unique in being a late-entry career and that the 40 year accrual period was standard elsewhere in the public services, with one or two exceptions mainly related to particularly hazardous and demanding jobs, for example the police and the fire service—though I dare say that it could be argued that there are hazards in being an hon. Member, particularly in terms of security of employment, and it is certainly a physically demanding job. The Committee also noted that the judiciary had a special arrangement whereby judges served for only 15 years, taking into account the fact that they were not normally appointed under the age of 50.
One of the principles that the Government have adopted, for good or ill, is that we should not depart too far—in fact, we have departed in only one minor respect—from the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body. The Body received a number of representations on this point from hon. Members who were asked to submit their views. There is an interesting appendix to the report in which the suggestions of hon. Members are analysed.
The Committee also pointed out that some hon. Members will probably bring in a pension entitlement from other occupations. This is probably more true of hon. Members who are coming in now than of Members who came in some time ago. I have done a little checking among hon. Members who have been elected recently and I find that some, though by no means all, have a pension entitlement from another occupation. Of course, there is not the full transferability pension rights which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West rightly said was a desirable factor.
We must also consider the cost. It would cost nothing if we put the whole burden on to the Exchequer, but I do not know whether the House would approve of our doing that. The result of adopting the proposal in the new clause and providing that hon. Members should meet only half the cost would be an extra 4 per cent. on Members' contributions, increasing them from 6 per cent. to 10 per cent. If hon. Members wanted to improve the scheme on the basis of their paying half the cost, they would have to face the prospect of an extra 4 per cent. on their contributions, and I believe that a number of hon. Members would wish to consider the matter carefully before going that far, because 10 per cent. is a pretty hefty contribution towards a pension.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much judges pay?

Mr. Smith: I am not aware of the details. Offhand, I am not aware that they pay a percentage of their salary at all. There may be a notional deduction. I am not sure.
Of course, we could say that we should be like judges, firemen, policemen or civil servants, but we are dealing with fairly minor amendments to the scheme. No one has pretended that the Bill is a major innovation of our pension scheme. It is a modest Bill making a number of minor improvements. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield said that this was not much of a Bill because it did not make massive improvements. I plead guilty to that charge, I have never claimed that it was any more than a modest Bill.
To accept the amendment would be to make a radical departure in pension


arrangements. It may be a desirable departure. I am sure that we should all like better pension provisions and we are all aware that people sometimes do not take due account of the particularly demanding circumstances of being an hon. Member and of the acute lack of security of employment for many of us which is intrinsic in the democratic process. We are often misunderstood outside.
I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield will get anyone to tell for him. I rather agree with the criticisms of his attitude outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince who said that it is not a lack of courage so much as a matter of discretion. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West backed those comments.
It is not through any lack of sympathy to try to improve Members' pensions that I argue that the Committee should not accept the new clause. It is out of character on a Bill which seeks to make minor improvements to seek to make a major change which would have consequences, in terms of contributions, which Members would have to consider very carefully before adopting.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I should feel much happier with that reply if the Minister had implied a little more explicitly that we might expect another Bill making major changes. He was right in his description of the Bill. It could not be more minor than it is. It is a minimus Bill. To that extent, I realise that the new clause is somewhat out of harmony with it.
It would be my intention to divide the House if there were anyone to divide the House with me. As we have a catering strike this evening, which has driven virtually the whole of the membership of the House away, except for the few Members who are present, and since those who are here lack the same aggressive approach which I entertain—

Mr. English: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will make the point that such industrial action as may be occurring upon the premises and may be

about to end is solely because our restaurant and catering staff do not have similar conditions to restaurant and catering staff in the Civil Service.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman may make the point, but we do not want to become involved in an industrial dispute, whether real or imaginary.

Mr. Bell: I think that I have quite enough on my plate—if I may use that expression—without taking on the Catering Department. In looking for a Member to support me in calling a Division, I was not really thinking of the catering staff.
I shall not ask leave to withdraw the motion and new clause, because that would be against my principles. I shall allow it to be negatived, in the feeling, perhaps, that that increases the probability of a further Bill in the coming Session in which a rather more reasonable approach will be taken, and when there will not be a strike by the catering staff to deprive me of the support which I may reasonably expect.

Question put and negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 20, line 6, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 15, in subsection (2), the words "the next following subsection and to", subsection (3) and, in subsection (4), the words from "and if" to the end of the subsection.'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EDUCATIONAL GUIDANCE SERVICE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I rise rather earlier than I expected. That being so, it may be that we can take the debate in a slightly more leisurely fashion.
My interest in the subject of the educational guidance service for adults in Northern Ireland is, I should explain, an educational interest. It is a service that has occasioned much international interest. It has done more, internationally, for the image of the Province than most of the events that have taken place there in the past decade.
The service was established under a different name—the adult vocational guidance service—in 1967. It was financed originally by a trust, and was administered from the outset by the Northern Ireland Council for Social Service, with an advisory committee to help it.
Initially there was some doubt whether it might have as its original name implied, a vocational bias. However, it was established that its orientation would be towards education problems.
In December 1969 the Council's advisory committee sent a deputation to the Northern Ireland Ministry of Education to discuss the future of the service and its financial situation, as the aid from the Wilson Trust was coming to an end. At that stage the Ministry agreed to grant aid to the service. In consequence of that the change of name occurred, and in 1970 it became the educational guidance service for adults.
In September 1973—I go quickly over the history—the Ministry of Education received another deputation from the advisory committee. The advisory committee wanted a new look taken at the future of the service. At that meeting the permanent secretary of the Ministry asked the committee to suggest various ways in which the service might be reorganised and expanded. Four possible schemes were formulated, with a centrally

organised but independent service being favoured. I stress "independent".
In 1974 the Department of Education, as it had by then become, set up a working party. In that year the Minister of Education announced to the then Northern Ireland Assembly that there would be created a council for continuing education. In the course of the statement he referred again to the educational guidance service for adults. The following year a special panel of the new council, after investigating the work of the service, recommended that it should be continued
based on one of the education and library boards with arrangements for suitable financial contributions from other boards. It should continue to be known as the Educational Guidance Service for Adults. Existing staff should be transferred with the Service".
I stress the words "based on", which in normal English do not mean "run by". I stress that the service should continue to be known as the educational guidance service for adults.
The year after that—we now come to modern times, 1976—the Department wrote to the five boards asking them to indicate how they intended to make provision for a service taking into account the experience of the educational guidance service. At that stage there was no suggestion that one of the boards should run the service on behalf of all five.
The Northern Ireland Council for Social Service asked the boards how the EGSA might be incorporated into their own plans. What emerged from that is what we now have. The Belfast education and library board has established a service. It is not known as a guidance service for adults. It has run from April last year with the name of the further education guidance service. None of the other boards has so far established a service, though all were expected to do so at about the same time. There is some notion that the Belfast board may act on behalf of the others, but that does not seem to be happening to any great effect. In the meantime, the Department has ceased to grant-aid EGSA through the Northern Ireland Council of Social Service.
In the recitation of the history I stopped at one or two points to stress the words "independent" and "based upon one of the boards". I did that because


there has been some confusion, not least within the Department of Education, about what is meant by integrating the service provide by EGSA in the past with statutory provision.
I have received letters from the Minister of State, Lord Melchett, in which he argues that a statement by the director of the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services supports his view and his action in ceasing to fund the board. The director says:
It was always the Council's intention that ways should be sought of having the service, once its usefulness to the community had been proven, integrated into the statutory education service of the province.
That is right. No one is contesting that. But the word "integrated", any more than the words "based upon", does not mean "run by" the board as part of the normal service. Why is that? What is the point of having a separate or independent service even if it is integrated in statutory provision in the sense that it is funded by and linked to some common services?
Current thinking in the adult education world, not only here but interntationally, favours the provision of at least some counselling services separately from the providers. So many agencies are involved in the provision of education for adults that it is impossible for any one of them to run an efficient, cost-effective service without any bias in the advice that is given to clients.
In the Northern Ireland context, we are not talking simply about further or adult education as it is provided by the education and library boards; we are talking about the Open University, the two local universities, the Ulster Polytechnic, the Workers' Educational Association and a host of other bodies. Few in the adult education world believe that guidance services can be provided adequately by one of the providing bodies separately from the others, unless that guidance is provided through an independent or semi-independent agency.
There is another reason why a measure of independence is essential. It is that counsellors have to be seen by their clients to be independent and impartial. They have to be able to act as advocates for their clients to the providing bodies

without being under undue pressure from their employers.
Nobody suggests that consumer advice centres should be run by manufacturers. Nobody suggests that citizens advice bureaux, although funded by grants from central and local government, should be staffed by civil servants and local government officers. Heaven forfend such a system. And yet it is suggested that one of the providing bodies, the Belfast education and library board, should, in effect, run what is not in the strict sense a guidance service for adults but a further education advisory service.
I turn to another aspect of the EGSA's work in the past. The EGSA collected and kept up to date information on a wide range of further education and training courses and on careers. It produced its own leaflets on courses and career opportunities for adults. It dealt with a host of inquiries and drew upon a bank of information that had been built up over 10 years. It became the main centre in Northern Ireland for information on all spects of adult education.
In this island, we now have an advisory council on adult and continuing education which has established a committee. The task of that committee, which is chaired by Peter Clyne, of the Inner London Education Authority, is to investigate the possibility of establishing information collection centres as well as guidance services. Why is that? It is because information collection is relevant not only to guidance in the face-to-face sense but to a host of other developments which are likely to take place in adult education. One of the most obvious is the establishment of the credit transfer system.
There is a publicly funded research project on the establishment of information banks as a basis for running a credit transfer system. We had one in Northern Ireland but it has been wound up. It has been argued repeatedly to me, in correspondence, by the Minister of State, that the educational guidance service for adults was established on an experimental basis. It is extraordinary that an experiment should run for 10 years, but it is more extraordinary still that if the EGSA was run on an experimental basis no one from the Department made the slightest effort to monitor that experiment,


to collect the evidence of its success or failure, though the Department freely admits in letter after letter that it was a success, and then to build upon that success. What one does not do with expriments after 10 years is to say, without any evidence or monitoring, that an experiment has been a success and that therefore it must be wound up, closed down and started again somewhere else.
That is a most extraordinary way to proceed. The experience and expertise built up within the EGSA, not least the experience and expertise of Dr. Eagleson, who was primarily responsible for running it, has been wasted. Over that 10-year period the service had over 4,000 clients. A large number of them are still using it in spite of its official demise. Although it no longer has funding except from voluntary sources, it still manages to carry on, and it is carrying on, I am glad to say, under the aegis, not in a financial sense but in order to give it a protective mantle, of the Association for Recurrent Education, of which I am happy to be the president.
At least 1,000 of the 4,000 clients who have been to the service could still be described as being on its books. Though it has never advertised, it has guaranteed complete confidentiality and has avoided being identified with any particular body or institution. In that way it has attracted clients who have expressed—some have expressed it to me—the most extreme trust in the quality and confidentiality of the advice that they have received. They could not do that with a board office any more than it could be done with a local education authority in some parts of this country.
If one neglects the Belfast scene and looks to the rest of Northern Ireland, one sees that many of those entering board offices fear that they will be recognised, and that means particularly those who have learning difficulties, mental problems, and so on—and many of those have come the way of the EGSA. Nor could employees of the board itself easily use that service. I am not making a point specific to Northern Ireland. I would not want to see that happen in this country either, where at least the LEAs are democratically elected. It is even more disturbing when there is no demo-

cratically elected organ of Government responsible for the education service.
The Northern Ireland Council of Social Service has consistently told the Department that it is happy to continue some involvement with the service provided that it is continued with public funding and with independent or semi-independent status. I am not sure that that point has always been fully understood by the Department or by the Minister of State.
I turn now to some other aspects of the work of the EGSA. What I have not yet said is that by the provision of an educational psychologist—always available to the service; indeed, employed by the service in latter years—it has been able to offer substantial help to many people who would otherwise not have come within the ambit of the traditional adult education sevice at all.
These are people who, perhaps because of the peculiar conditions of the Province, perhaps because of their own personal difficulties, would not normally—and certainly would not in this island, I suspect—have thought of seeking to improve their prospects in life through adult education courses. By coming into the EGSA, by sometimes undergoing testing—and psychological testing has been used, basically simply to discover aptitudes and abilities, with some 30 per cent. of the clients—and by receiving the expert counselling which the staff were able to offer, many of these people have developed new interests and ultimately have undertaken new careers.
The international reputation of the EGSA is not in question. I have with today a document from a UNESCO conference held in California last year, in which there are words of praise for the EGSA, and in which it is also concluded that
It is desirable to establish a comprehensive information, guidance and counselling centre as an independent information and counselling service for adults, maintaining close contact and co-operation with all adult educational agencies but administratively autonomous.
At this year's conference of the National Institute for Adult Education in Cardiff, which I attended and which the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science attended—he made representations, I believe, to the Northern Ireland Office after that conference—there was almost unanimous support for the


continuation of the EGSA and expressions of great regret at the decision of the Department of Education in Northern Ireland to cease funding the service
On other occasions there have been letters in Northern Ireland papers, and even in the educational papers in this country, praising the EGSA and suggesting that funding to it should continue.
Perhaps I may quote Paul Bertelsen, the head of the adult education section of UNESCO. He said earlier this year of Dr. Eagleson, who has been running the EGSA:
Dr. Dorothy Eagleton is highly thought of internationally. She has made a very constructive contribution to knowledge in this area. If you give her functions to someone without her experience and qualifications, you might just as well put a pile of directories in a room and call that an advice centre. People who run these services must be skilled in psychology, in human relationships, be very understanding and have a very wide knowledge of education.
In December of last year the educational magazine Education—I pause on that point to stress that that is a proper name—contained a lengthy article describing the new growth of advisory and counselling services in Great Britain. It said:
Ironically, the most fully-fledged guidance service in the British Isles is threatened with extinction. It is the one in Northern Ireland run by Dr. Dorothy Eagleson.
It went on to describe some of the total of about 40 schemes which are now in process of developing in Great Britain. Not one of them, to my knowledge, is run purely by a local education authority. Most of them are run by a combination of providing bodies and are funded by a combination of providing bodies, and they are run in independence from any single providing body, some of them with Open University involvement. There is an excellent example of that in the South Wales area.
I quote again from a gentleman who has been attempting to set up a similar unit to the EGSA in Merseyside. He said:
Dorothy is the key figure in developments of this kind. Between 30 and 40 educational guidance projects on the mainland are legitimate offspring of the EGSA.
I could go on with an endless series of quotations in praise of what the EGSA has done. What amazes me is that the Department of Education has not

only cut off the EGSA, as it were, and tried to create a new service elsewhere—I commented on that earlier—but it has acted in such a way that the Northern Ireland Council of Social Service has had to give notice to Dorothy Eagleson, much against its own will, after 11 years of devoted service. That does not seem to me a sensible way of a Government Department to behave. I say that with great regret to my hon. Friend, for whom I have the highest respect. It seems to me to be bad industrial relations, at the least. It seems also to be bad administrative practice to scrap what exists and is successful and to replace it with yet another experiment.
I shall end by quoting from a letter published in the Press in Northern Ireland about a year ago, written by a man who signed himself simply as "Second Chance" and who was one of the clients of the educational guidance service for adults. At the end of his letter he said:
There is surely something wrong with a Government that cannot find a way to underwrite a far-sighted, creative and community-oriented education service which is the envy of counsellors in other parts of the United Kingdom.
I endorse those words.

9.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) brings to this subject considerable experience, including ministerial experience, and, as he pointed out, he has had lengthy discussions with my noble Friend, whose departmental responsibility this is in Northern Ireland. It is not my responsibility, but in his place I answer for my noble Friend's actions and responsibilities.
I have, however, carefully studied the background to the correspondence and the administrative changes which have been made, which have raised the ire and criticism of my hon. Friend. I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's general position in his concern for the whole field of guidance in further education. It is a subject which I know something about, having participated in it.
Before I venture forth upon the departmental brief, I wish to say to my hon. Friend—I have convinced myself of this—that the changes which my noble Friend


has sanctioned have been precisely in pursuit of the aim which my hon. Friend would urge him to adopt, that is, the improvement of the guidance service. It is not disputed, I understand, that Dr. Eagleson offered a first-class service, but when the "experiment"—I put that word in inverted commas—was examined, it was felt—indeed, at the end of the day it was recommended—that a more broadly based service should be offered, for the obvious reason that all adult education and further education should be backed up by a complete and wide-ranging advisory service.
What we have so far in Northern Ireland by way of a State service is in itself a beginning, and one hopes that it will improve. As my hon. Friend said, the Belfast area has the only service so far with a fully fledged system, and that is looking after the needs of the whole of the Province. As I shall be able to point out as I go through the brief, we hope to extend and improve the scope of the service.
My hon. Friend has spoken strongly in support of the Northern Ireland educational guidance service for adults, and I say at the outset that the Government fully accept that a need exists in Northern Ireland for an effective service to assist and guide adults to take advantage of the opportunities available to them in further and higher education. We are committed to a policy of developing such opportunities within the Province under the general umbrella of continuing education.
We recognise that an effective guidance service for adults is an indispensable requirement if the best possible use is to be made of the facilities and the courses which already exist and which are being planned. We believe, however, that adult educational guidance must be made available on as wide a basis and to as many people as possible and must be backed up by a structure able to furnish the necessary administrative and other resources which such development demands.
After careful consideration of the courses open to them, the Government came to the conclusion that the most effective way in which these essential requirements could be met was by asking the education and library boards to take on responsibility for providing a

guidance service, applying where practicable, the lessons gained from the work of the EGSA.
A considerable time has elapsed since this decision and during this period the Government have had no cause to change their view that an expanded service to cater for the whole of Northern Ireland can best be established through the education and library boards, which have statutory responsibility for the provision of educational facilities of all kinds.
In addition to providing a base for a comprehensive service, this arrangement means that support will be available from the organisational structures and expertise which exist within the boards. In considering the matter there has never been any question whatsoever of abandoning the basic principles so successfully established by the EGSA; rather, the intention has been to make provision for development along the most rational lines. In this respect a promising start has already been made by the Belfast education and library board and I propose to give hon. Members an outline of what has been achieved by the board during a relatively short period of operation.
Before doing so, however, it might be useful if I were to review briefly the history of EGSA. The service was first established in 1967 when the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services considered that there was a need to look at the problems associated with guiding and counselling adults on their educational needs. The Council as a consequence established the EGSA on an experimental basis. In the first instance, finance was provided by the Clement Wilson Foundation. But in 1970 the Foundation withdrew its support, apparently being satisfied at that time that the immediate objectives of the experiment had been met.
Financial assistance was then sought for a further period from the Department of Education for Northern Ireland, to enable the future of the service to be considered. From 1970 to 1973 the service was financed partly by the Department and partly by the Gulbenkian Foundation, but since 1973, when that Foundation's involvement came to an end, the service has been wholly dependent on grant-aid from the Department.


The point has been made from time to time that there is particular merit in having an "independent" guidance service but although the project has never been under the direct control of a statutory body, in recent years it has been entirely dependent for its continued existence upon public funds.
In outlining the general background, the other point which I should like to underline is that, in spite of its long period of operation, the EGSA was, as I have already stated, conceived as an experimental unit, set up to explore the field of adult educational guidance and not as a body on which the provision of a service for the whole of Northern Ireland might be based. Indeed the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services in a Press statement has said,
it was always the Council's intention that ways should be sought of having the Service, once its usefulness to the community had been proven, integrated into the statutory education service for the Province. Such a development is part and parcel of the philosophy of a Council of Social Services and there is ample precedent for it".
It is a measure of the success of the experimental unit that in 1976 my right hon. Friend, the then Minister, considered that the nature and extent of the need for adult educational guidance had been fully established and felt justified in moving forward to the next logical stage, initiating a service to provide for the whole of Northern Ireland. In this respect, I should like to stress the Government's appreciation of the fine pioneering work undertaken by the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services, which cleared the way for this important step, and to say how impressed I am with the general recognition this work has so rightly been given by those who have the general interests of education at heart.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: The Minister has read a statement by Lord Meldrum which I had quoted. Would he accept that when Lord Meldrum, the director of the Northern Ireland Council, spoke of the EGSA being integrated into the statutory provision he did not mean that it should be wound up and its functions transferred somewhere else? That is not quite the same thing.

Mr. Carter: I bow to my hon. Friend's departmental experience and knowledge,

but I cannot conceive of a situation in which one would wind up a voluntary body and yet at the same time keep it in existence within the statutory framework. I do not understand how that could happen. I know of no precedent for it.
I think that we are in a situation of some conflict here, where the voluntary body is obviously carrying out an educational function which is recognised by the State. However, the State thinks that it could do the job rather better within its own functional and departmental responsibilities. I believe that my noble Friend in Northern Ireland felt that the conflict could best be resolved by the winding up of one body and the complete transfer of its responsibilities to his Department.
The EGSA was located in Belfast, though it provided guidance for clients from outside the city area if called upon to do so. It had a total specialist staff of one full-time organiser and one part-time psychologist. In the circumstances it was felt that it could not possibly provide a suitable base for the establishment of a comprehensive service extending over the whole Province, a view which was consistent with that subsequently expressed by the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services. On the other hand, the boards, which are financed 100 per cent. by the Department and which are statutorily responsible for educational services in Northern Ireland, were seen as being ready-made for the purpose.
At the time there appeared to be a general agreement that this was the best way to proceed. Following discussions between the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services, the Department of Education and the Belfast education and library board, it was agreed that the Belfast education and library board should establish a further education guidance service to commence on 1st April 1977. On this date the EGSA was to cease its active counselling function, but in effecting this transfer the Department of Education was most anxious to ensure that the experience gained in the experimental venture should not be lost to the Boards and that some way should be found to enable the EGSA's organiser to contribute to the development of the extended service. It was clear that this role would have to be distinct from the bulk of the


counselling work, which would be undertaken by the service established within the Belfast board.
It was considered that the organiser, Dr. Dorothy Eagleson, could best assist the boards in setting up the new service by becoming associated with a study of development and training requirements, and by pursuing research into areas in which the need for guidance and counselling had not been properly met. Unfortunately, it was not possible to reach agreement on the extent and nature of a continuing role for Dr. Eagleson.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that one of the suggestions made in that context to the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services for Dr. Eagleson's activities was that she should not only investigate the possibility of setting up a guidance service for the other boards but should examine the possibility of establishing an advisory service for female school-leavers who might have become teachers had it not been for the cut-back in teacher education and who no longer had that opportunity before them.
As to the establishment of the further education guidance service, which looks to 16-year-olds to 19-year-olds as well as adults, there is clearly in the Department's mind some confusion about what educational guidance for adults specifically is.

Mr. Carter: My hon. Friend has raised a matter to which I am not privy. I shall take it up with my noble Friend. I am sure that my noble Friend would want me to say that in these early and formative stages of the education and library boards providing this service we must accept that there is a learning process involved, though, as I shall indicate later, we seem to have got off to a fairly good start in terms of the number of people approaching the new service. But I shall make known to my noble Friend the point that my hon. Friend has just made.
In the circumstances, the Government have been forced to the view that a continuation of the direct counselling role of the EGSA would only duplicate the service provided by the education and library boards. The Department of Education cannot use public funds to give

100 per cent. grant-aid to separate organisations which would, in effect, be competing for clients.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

Mr. Carter: It is indicative of the Government's concern to arrive at a solution to this problem that, to give time in which to reach an agreement, grant aid was continued at 100 per cent. to meet the EGSA's staffing costs for one year beyond the original hand-over date of 1st April 1977. During this period there was extensive correspondence between the parties concerned and a number of meetings took place, but it was all to no avail. When the Department fixed 31st March 1978 as the date on which grant to the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services for the EGSA would finally cease, it was clear that no prospect existed of any agreement being reached on how Dr. Eaglesson might work with the Belfast education and library board's new service.
Turning to this new service, I am sure that the hon. Member will be pleased to hear that it has got off to a promising start since it began just over a year ago. At present the further education guidance service is providing a service for all areas of Northern Ireland, not just Belfast, pending the development of similar services by the other education and library boards.
The board deliberately called its new service the further education guidance service to avoid confusion in the minds of the public with the experimental service provided by the EGSA. This was necessary because there was an overlap period when both organisations were offering their services to the public. I would stress however that the term "further education guidance service" embraces all forms of continuing education and that the new service caters for all adult educational needs.
In its first year of operation the further education guidance service dealt with almost 600 cases. These covered a wide age range, but at least 80 per cent.


of them related to people over the age of 20 and almost 50 per cent. were in the age range 22 to 40. Of the total number of cases, 316 related to the Belfast education and library board area, 110 to the South-Eastern board area, 74 to the North-Eastern board area, 19 to the Southern board area, and 28 to the Western board area. In addition there were 29 inquiries from outside Northern Ireland.
The new service has been widely advertised throughout Northern Ireland and there has been a steady stream of people looking for help and advice. Close liaison has been established with other statutory bodies and the Department of Health and Social Services. The service is also operating in close co-operation with the board's other specialist services including that provided by the educational psychologist.
In general it is fair to claim that the first year's experience of the scheme operating within the statutory education

service is a story of success though, of course, much remains to be done.
Finally, I would not wish to close without remarking on the high regard in which the experimental education guidance service for adults was held and expressing the conviction that in its turn the statutory service will come to be universally regarded in a similar light. It was never intended that it should follow exactly the same pattern as the pioneer service, but the Belfast board has made an energetic and successful start and there has certainly been no decline in the number of people who have sought and been given assistance. We should like to feel that in Northern Ireland and we are still pioneering by working towards the translation of a most successful experiment into a full-fledged and equally successful service and thereby still maintaining our position as leaders in this field.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Ten o'clock.